Numbers Bite Reporter

In a story about dogs biting mail carriers on June 7, the Anchorage Daily News  reported that Los Angeles had the most dog bites and more than implied that Anchorage, in comparison, really didn't have a dog biting problem.

"It also released a national ranking of cities where the most mailmen have been bitten by dogs. On top: Los Angeles, with 65 dog bites recorded in 2023.

Anchorage isn’t anywhere near that number. Each year, six or so postal carriers are on the receiving end of dog attacks here, said safety manager Peter Neagle, a 40-year veteran of the service."

 Whoa!!!!   Let's look at that a bit more carefully.  

[Mixed Media Dragon, Madison Griffin,
 Anchorage Museum,
South High School Anchorage]

LA, with 13,000,000 people had 65 dog bites.

Anchorage with 380,000 people had 6 dog bites.  

LA has 34 times more people than Anchorage.   (13 million/380k = 34.2)

So, if Anchorage had LA's population, Anchorage would have had 205 (34.2 X 6) dog bites.

The numbers we want, if we're going to accurately compare LA to Anchorage, are the number of dog bites per capita.  

Anchorage has .000016 dog bites of mail carriers per capita.  (6/380,000 =.000016)

Los Angeles has .000005 dog bites of mail carriers per capita. (13,000,000/65=.000005)

In either case, it's a relatively small number.  If we look at number of dog bites per 100,000 population we get:

Anchorage: 1.58 dog bites per 100,000 people

LA: 0.5 dog bites per 100,000

But relative to actual population, Anchorage's problem is 34.2 times worse than LA's.  

Dismissing Anchorage's number because it is less than Los Angeles' number is flat out wrong.  

This doesn't mean that if Anchorage had 13 million people it would have 205 dog bites.  Perhaps people in large cities have fewer dogs per capita, or smaller dogs.  Or mail carriers delivering to high rise apartments and condos leave the mail downstairs and have less contact with dogs.  

But to suggest Anchorage numbers are good because our overall number of dog bites is lower than LA's overall number is just wrong.  

Of course, this applies to other stats as well, like murders, suicides, rapes, missing women, etc.  

[If you find errors in my math, let me know.  It's a very rusty skill that I don't use every day.  But even if I'm off a bit, the point will still be valid.]

Tonıght 7pm: ADN And Seattle Times Pair Up For Report on Sockeye Salmon And Crab Issues

Seems this would be interesting for many of you readers.   

Join a livestream of this event Dec. 12 at 7 p.m. Pacific time. Register here.

As the world warms, the Bering Sea tells a story of boom and bust. The sockeye salmon runs of Bristol Bay are to be marveled at. More than 78.3 million sockeye surged home last summer, filling nets and spawning grounds. The spectacular display came as Alaska salmon runs of chum and chinook once again imploded.

Meanwhile, Bering Sea crab populations have crashed. The snow crab harvest—for the first time ever — has been canceled, and the king crab season was shut down for the second year in a row.

Join Seattle Times reporter Hal Bernton, Anchorage Daily News photojournalist Loren Holmes and a panel of experts in a discussion of some of the effects of a warming climate on one of the planet’s most productive marine ecosystems.

"The Only Way" To Make Sense Of Sen. Hughes Questionably Logical Pro Constitutional Convention Commentary

I've been resisting writing a post on whether Alaskans should vote to have a constitutional convention.  I listened to a debate between former Assistant Attorney General Libby Bakalar and Senator Shower and resisted.  But today's ADN commentary arguing for a convention was the straw that broke my resistance.  

[For non-Alaskans, our state constitution requires us to vote every ten years on whether to have a constitutional convention.  Since the Constitution was ratified, we've never voted yes.  But this year far right Republicans are pushing this as a way to get rid of the privacy provision which the Supreme Court has used to keep abortion legal in Alaska, and to change the very rational way we select judges among other things.]

So let me talk about a few things. (I could do more, but you'll get the idea fairly quickly.)

1.  The title

COMMENTARY

A constitutional convention is the only way to fix Alaska

Shelley Hughes

That's the headline.  I don't know that Rep. Hughes wrote it or the Anchorage Daily News editors wrote it, so take my comments with that in mind.  

Anyone who starts out saying there is only one way to fix something has already exposed themselves as an uncreative and rigid thinker.  There are always different ways to fix something.  Some very focused mechanical problems - like a backed up toilet - may have relatively few options.  But something as complicated as the whole State of Alaska, certainly has lots of different ways to be "fixed.'   And, note, she doesn't actually tell us what parts are broken and need to be fixed.  A constitutional convention is not the first thing that comes to mind as 'the solution', and probably not to most Alaskans minds. (Though we will learn next week whether this is true or not, at least for Alaskan voters.)

2.  Opening confusion.  She begins by imploring us:

"Alaskans, I respectfully implore you to recognize that the flood of paid advertisements you’ve been hearing about a state constitutional convention may not be telling you the whole story — and dare I say is “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” vote."

This is a very confused sentence.   It's doesn't make grammatical sense. And, I'd note, unlimited Outside money is ok when it's oil interest money advertising for a GOP cause, but not when the other side has all that money.  

"the flood of paid advertisements you've been hearing about a state constitutional convention"

Does she mean a "flood of ads we've been hearing about"?   Or is 'about' connected to "a state constitutional convention."  As a blogger who writes a lot, I'm guessing this is the result of editing the original sentence without going back and reading whether it still makes sense.  

She then adds into this convoluted sentence something about spinning the story to protect the power and wealth of people who want you to vote no.  

Well of course, the 'no' side is telling a story to get you to 'vote no' because it's in their interest. 

Just like she's spinning a 'yes' argument to get us to vote yes, because it's in her interest.  

I'd note that Vocabulary.com says 'implore' suggests desperation.

"The word implore is often used to describe an urgent request made out of desperation. A man on death row might implore the governor to grant him a last-minute pardon."

And later in this Commentary she tells us why she's desperate - the No side is outspending the Yes side (her side) 100 to 1.  

3.  36 Questions.  Most of the commentary is made up of 36 questions.  (No I didn't count them, but I used the search function to tell me how many question marks there were.).   These questions, as you might imagine 

• "may not be telling you the whole story"
• " are “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” ["yes"] vote."

They are all phrased with the very condescending school teacher structure of "Are we...?"  This is how some people talk to children.  Are we hungry today children?  Do we know what day it is today?

Question #1:

"Are we going to realize before we vote that more than 230 state constitutional conventions have been held in our nation successfully, peacefully, without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters?"

Let's briefly look at those '230 state constitutional conventions.'  A Cambridge University Press article published June 2022 tells us there were actually 250:

"From the 1770s through the 1970s, the 50 states held nearly 250 constitutional conventions, many of which brought about important changes in governance.

"Working from this list, I identify 77 of these conventions that were called to create inaugural state constitutions. Another 50 conventions were called for reasons stemming from the Civil War, including conventions called to secede from the Union and make necessary changes in state constitutions, then rejoin the Union and make state constitutional changes required as part of Reconstruction, and then later reverse changes adopted during Reconstruction. Another 41 conventions were called not at the instigation of legislatures but rather through automatically generated conventions or referendums or councils of censors or federal courts."

So the vast majority were:

• For the state to originally draft their constitutions*
• To secede from the US during the Civil War and then to rejoin the US after the Civil War make changes during Reconstruction and the reverse those changes.  All, according to Hughes, "without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters."  Really? Not even seceding from the US?  Not even setting up Jim Crow constitutions?  Really?

From the National Conference of State Legislators website, we learn:

"Nine states drafted new documents during the turbulent years between 1964 and 1975. Only two states have adopted new constitutions since then: Georgia in 1983, and Rhode Island in 1986.

Alabama is often mentioned when the idea of a constitutional convention comes up. The state’s current document dates to 1901 and at 376,000 words is about 80 times the length of the original U.S. Constitution, making it by far the longest and most amended of state constitutions. Amendments make up about 90 percent of it. Many local government functions are established by the constitution, and it often takes an amendment proposed by the Legislature to make changes to policies affecting a single county, or even a single town." 

So, it isn't a happy story of 230 states willy nilly calling conventions and having kumbaya conventions.  And conventions stopped happening, for the most part, in the 1970s.  And the state that has amended its constitution the most is Alabama.  Now there's a stellar role model for Alaska.  

A related set of questions from Hughes:

"Are we aware that in the more than 230 state conventions that have been held in our nation that Pandora’s box was not opened, that not a single worm escaped a can? That only sane and reasonable amendments were adopted?"

How do 'we' know this?  Just because she says so?  Not a single worm escaped?  How about the Civil War?  Maybe we should look carefully at all the changes to the Alabama constitution.   Actually Former Louisiana state senator Tony Guarisco wrote: 

"The 19th-century racist constitutions of the Bourbons and their 1921"crazy quilt" successor were embarrassments at best. Between 1922 and 1973, a constitutional revision by amendment produced 536 changes to a document that became virtually incomprehensible. Louisiana's law schools expended little or no effort to teach useless or inferior legal authority."

While Guarisco may not be unbiased, he was involved in one the Constitutional rewrites and probably has a better take on this than Sen. Hughes has.

Question 2:  (I'm not going to go through all 36 questions.  Just a few.  So this is the second question from Hughes' list that I'm going to address.)

"Have we processed the fact that the yes side only has donations from individual Alaskans, not the millions from outside ultra-liberal organizations like the opposition? And that the no side is outspending the yes side by 100 to one? That this is a David vs. Goliath battle?"

I haven't checked these facts out, but articles do confirm that the NO campaign is vastly outspending the YES campaign, and that they have a large donation from the same Outside group that supported Ranked Choice elections.  But it ignores the many Alaskan organizations - unions, fisheries groups, Native Groups - that oppose having a convention.

What I want to address here is the David and Goliath comparison.  In the Biblical tale, Goliath was bigger than David.  And Goliath was the bad guy.  David was the good guy.  Well, Senator Hughes here makes the argument that the NO group is bigger (has more money) and then slips in the assumption that the NO group is also the bad guy and that YES group are the good guys.  But she hasn't proved that at all.  Sometimes the stronger guy is also the better guy.  

She reinforces this at the end of the commentary: 

"Much is at stake. Root for David; vote yes."

Question 3:

"Do we realize that the voters elect the delegates by district and therefore the delegates will reflect the values of Alaskans statewide?"

This is actually one of the murkiest parts.  We've just gone through a very contentious redistricting board process.  Exactly how many districts will there be?  Who will set the boundaries for the districts?  The Alaska legislature is elected from districts.  Why would the convention be more harmonious than the legislature (which Hughes implied in previous questions couldn't do the job)?  And why wouldn't the urban centers dominate the rural areas?  [Yes, I just gave you a bunch of questions, but they weren't rhetorical ones like Hughes' questions.  They seek answers.]   I haven't found any documentation on how these delegates would get picked, or even how many there'd be.  The Voter Pamphlet only asks us vote whether to have a convention or not.  It doesn't tell us any more detail than that.  

OK.  That's enough.  You get the picture.  I'll reiterate.  From my perspective the YES folks want to have a convention for two main reasons:

1. They are frustrated because the Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the Privacy section of the Alaska Constitution as guaranteeing the right to abortions.  So reason one is to change the Privacy section of the Constitution and they want to add language to prohibit abortions.  
2. They want to change the very rational way the Constitution sets up for picking judges so the conservatives  have more political control of the judges.  

And there are other things they would change if they had the chance, but I think these are the two most critical ones.

If you haven't already voted, be sure to vote No on Proposition 1 that calls for a constitutional convention.  

*I'm not sure either why 50 states would have 77 constitutional conventions to draft their original constitutions.  Perhaps some were rejected the first time round and they had to start again.  And territories, like Puerto Rico, have drafted constitutions but haven't been accepted as states yet.  (Alaska and Hawaii had their conventions prior to becoming states.)

Letters To The Editor, Book Reference Sweeney And Termination

 I generally don't write letters to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News (ADN).  I have a blog where I can say what I need to say.  But we're in the middle of a special election to replace our member of Congress who died recently and an opinion piece the other day disturbed me.  

I wasn't planning on making this into a post, until a reference to Tara Sweeny showed up this morning.  So, first, here's my letter (The ADN picked the title, not me.)

No to Sweeney

"Hugh Ashlock (ADN, June 3) would have us vote for Sweeney for Congress because she will support business. Ashlock, a real estate developer, says he knows what qualities entrepreneurs need for success. He points out she’s been a leader of Arctic Slope Regional Corp., “Alaska’s largest privately owned company.” He also cites her “bipartisan cooperation” using her unanimous confirmation by the U.S. Senate as an example. But that was when the GOP controlled the Senate and Democrats voted for qualified nominees, unlike Republicans, who wouldn’t even let Merrick Garland have a hearing, let alone a vote.

Alaska has never been short of elected officials who support business. We’ve had oil company employees as elected officials. Ashlock says government needs to stand aside and let business do what it does best. The common goal of all businesses is to make a profit. Clean environment? Climate change? Worker health and safety? They see all these as obstacles to profit.

Bipartisanship? Arctic Slope Regional Corporation couldn’t even cooperate with the Alaska Federation of Natives and pulled out of that organization. GOP members of Congress are like the Uvalde police — they fled the insurrectionists and then refused to do their job and hold them accountable.

The age of oil is waning. Even big banks and oil companies are pulling back from Alaska oil. We need realists who see that the future is in a strong Permanent Fund, not in climate-destroying fossil fuels. We don’t need another oil executive (ASRC lives off oil) representing us in any governmental body. We need a candidate who believes health care is a human right and that women should have as much autonomy over their bodies as men, that voting rights and campaign spending limits are critical to democracy; who fights for workers’ rights, not for greater corporate power. Not someone who will join with her party to oppose all of these things in favor of higher profits."

When the letter was published I got a couple of emails from my book club.  One added this note:  

"Yes. Good letter Steve. Louise Erdrich also  lambasts Tara Sweeney in the Epilogue of her latest book “The Night Watchman.”

I got to that part this morning.  The book is a fictional account of how Erdrich's grandfather, in the 1950s learned that their tribal lands were going to be terminated.  Against all odds, he mounts a campaign to lobby Congress to prevent the termination, and succeeds.  I posted about the book recently because, while the fight against termination is the basic story, it's wrapped in the context of reservation life and Turtle Mountain Chippewa culture of the 1950s in North Dakota.  The termination villain in the story is real life Senator Arthur V. Watkins of Utah who believes 'government handouts' kills the initiative of Indians.  

Here's what the Epilogue says: 

"Indeed, the Trump administration and Assistant Secretary of the Interior Tara Sweeney have recently brought back the termination era by seeking to terminate the Wampanoag, the tribe who first welcomed Pilgrims to these shores and invented Thanksgiving."

Mind you, Tara Sweeny is an Alaska Native woman.  

*The ADN added the title.  While I am opposed to Tara Sweeny, my point was more about the fact that we have enough pro-business representatives.   

Not Learning From History. Not Knowing Statistics

 The Anchorage Daily News headline today:

"Sicker and younger:  Unvaccinated people drive new trend"

I couldn't help but mentally edit  Pastor Martin Niemöller's famous quote about the Nazi's victims.

First they [it] came for the socialists [nursing home residents], and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.[a nursing home resident]

Then they [it] came for the trade unionists, [other seniors and immuno-compromised] and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.  [a senior or immune-compromised]

Then they [it] came for the Jews,[unvaccinated] and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. young

Then they [it] came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

A major problem driving all this is STATISTICAL IGNORANCE.  People simply don't understand statistics, so terms like 'flattening the curve' or 'cases per 100,000' don't really mean anything.  The graphs are just pictures of curves and straight lines.  

And newspaper headlines and Tweets don't help.  Either the writers and editors don't understand statistics or they are intentionally trying to mislead.  (Sure, it's rarely either/or, they might just be rushing and not thinking)

Do I need to explain these Tweets?  Yeah, I guess, some folks won't get this.  

The original tweet (Ken Dilanian) highlights that 125,000 fully vaccinated Americans tested positive for COVID.  There's no mention of: 

1. what the time period was
2. how many of them were asymptomatic
3. how many had minor symptoms
4. how many were hospitalize
5. how many needed a ventilator
6. how many died

And Derek Willis also points out that if you realize that this was .08 percent of all the 164 million people who have been vaccinated, the amazing effectiveness of the vaccines are highlighted instead of making it sound like the vaccinations are ineffective.  

One last thing that I've mentioned before, but isn't talked about enough.  The longer the virus is able to find refuge in human hosts, the more potentially deadlier and more contagious variants can evolve.  (And you have to understand and believe in evolution to understand that point.)  So, the more people who are vaccinated (locally, but also world wide, cause people travel and virus hitchhike on those travelers) the fewer refuges there are for virus to mutate.  

It seems to me we're all in a leaky boat together in the ocean.  The water is up to our ankles.  A small but vocal group of the passengers want to drill holes in the bottom of the boat to let the water drain out.  Those are the anti-maskers and the anti-vaxxers.  

Will Anti-Maskers Kill Halloween?

 Here's a letter to the editor in the Anchorage Daily News today.

For sight impaired, see letter written out below

I have to admit he packs a lot into such a short letter.  

Personal liberty:  He's trying to curtail other people's personal choice to wear masks.  Wonder how he feels about tattoos.  

• What about people who have made or purchased attractive masks and now enjoy them as a fashion statement?  
• What about people who have relished the ability to hide a disfigurement on their face or just something they don't like about how they look during this time when many others wear masks?
• What about people with low immunity who need a mask for more than just COVID?
• What about scuba divers and snorkelers?
• I was going to say 'what about' here too, but we already know that these people never liked face coverings that some Muslim women wear.  
• What about White Nationalist protesters who want to hide their identity from surveillance?

Halloween:  His 'No Masks ever" is pretty broad.  Is this also part of some religious group  that thinks Halloween violates sacred beliefs?  Will they still be yelling 'no masks ever' three months from now?

Ideological Symbolism - People who are so emotionally upset by masks, it seems to me, see masks as rebukes to their belief systems.  Every mask, to them, must seem like someone saying, "You're wrong."  I'd note that many of these same people also get irate about people of color complaining about racist language.  They tell them to not be so 'sensitive.'  

Willful Ignorance - Who is guilty of mask stupidity?  It seems to me it's the anti-maskers.  [Does anyone else think it's bizarre that we even have that word?] In answer to the question in the letter - vaccinations protect about 90-95% of the vaccinated from getting COVID.  But we don't know who that 5-10 out of 100 are.  It appears - the scientists are studying this as it happens and evolves so most conclusions are tentative - that for most vaccinated people who do get infected, there will be mild or no symptoms.  However, they can infect others. So the masks both protect the person wearing it and other people.  But people like the letter writer do not seem to care about other people, at least those who disagree with their world view, so it's hard for them to understand such feelings as empathy or caring.  

Ultimately anyone has the right to wear a mask for any reason, except those committing crimes with a mask to hide their identity.  I'm actually hoping that masks will become a fashion.  At least with masks, unlike with tattoos, you can change them or just leave them off.  

[Technology that reads the internet for those with sight problems can read text and make it into audio, but cannot read text in images, so it helps to write out such text.]

The Letter:

"No Masks

Stop this mask stupidity.  If you're vaccinated and it works, why wear a mask?  This ridiculous nonsense must stop.  No masks ever.

-Nicholas Danger, Anchorage"

The Board Gets Advice From Legislative Attorney And Decides To Proceed With The Interview In Executive Session

When I worked at the Municipality of Anchorage long ago, I had to write some policy.  I wanted to be sure I wouldn't run afoul of the law, so I went to the legal department and asked what the law was regarding the topic.  

The attorney said what do you want to do?  I said I want to write the policy so it's legal.  He repeated, what exactly do you want to do?  I said I wasn't exactly sure until I understood the law.  He said, tell me what you want to do and I'll find the law that allows you do what you want to do.  

That's my sense of today's decision to go into Executive Session.    

I had suggested that the Board interview with the law office that will represent the Board be public and offered reasons why in the last post. 

Here are the reasons a body can go into Executive Session:

(c)    The following subjects may be considered in an executive session:
(1)     matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;
(2)     subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;
(3)     matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;
(4)     matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure. 

 I cited the Alaska Supreme Court which has ruled that the only likely reason in interviewing an applicant for Police Chief or City Manager in Executive Session was possibly number (2),  The Supreme Court ruled:

"Ordinarily an applicant's reputation will not be damaged by a public discussion of his or her qualifications relating to experience, education and background or by a comparison of them with those of other candidates."

The Supreme Court allowed that it is possible when talking about the personal characteristics of applicants.  But the remedy is to stay public and only go into Executive Session when discussing the allowed exemptions.  

Well, today the Peter Torkelson reported the advice of Legislative Legal.  I didn't catch all the details, but he didn't really talk that long either.  But basically he said that Leg Legal said that they could potentially discuss things that fall under exemption 1, 2, and 4. 

1.  matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;

What I understood here was that they might talk about legal strategies to use should the Board be sued.  I agree that legal strategies for pending lawsuits are generally exempted.  

2.  subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;

I already cited the Supreme Court's decision on this - that yes, it could happen, but for the most part people selling their services are not likely to do this.  

4.  matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure.  

It wasn't clear to me what records they were talking about.  Possibly they were again talking about legal strategies.  

OK, so these are items that might come up ("prejudice the reputation...") or are likely to come up (legal strategies).  However, the public meetings statute also says:

"Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those                                         mentioned in the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main                                question."

Which means that everything else must be considered in public.  So, they should begin the interview in public.  And when they get near either of those issues, they can go into Executive Session and then come back out of Executive Session.  

Different people can interpret the law differently.  I also understand that it's much more convenient to simply go into Executive Session.  And I suspect that most public bodies in Alaska invoke Executive Session so without seriously considering the intent of the law, or on advice of attorneys who don't tell them what the law is, but how to do what they want legally.  

Further, nothing is technically illegal until ruled so by a judge.  So unless a member of the body objects, or a member of the public sues, various bodies in the state will take the easy way out and just go into Executive Session.  

Today's meeting took about ten minutes to discuss the attorney's advice and then vote to go into Executive Session. (I'd note the attorney did point out that that office does not represent the Board.)

The Board has also not told the public who they are interviewing.  Surely the names of the two law firms is not going to prejudice the reputation of either of them.  Unless we are now at the stage where someone argues that not winning the contract will prejudice their reputation.  

Rich Mauer, then an Anchorage Daily News reporter, challenged the previous Board over this issue in 2013 when they were interviewing applicants for the new Executive Director and the Board agreed to conduct the interviews openly.  Given that the Anchorage Daily News is now owned by part of the Binkley family, and the Board Chair is part of that family, I don't think the ADN is likely to challenge, let alone sue, the Board over this sort of thing.

Below are my rough notes from the meeting:

2:58   Folks chatting   

3:01 John:  We got a little pushback about Executive Session - talked to Legislative attorney because of this.  

Hi Melanie, Hi Budd

Melanie:  How you doing?

Lots of snow in Fairbanks

Think we're all here.  Nicole , Melanie Banke, Budd Simpson, Bethany, John Binkley, Peter Torkelson

John:  One agenda item - legal services  Agenda adopted unanimously

Only item:  Interview for RFI legal services, plan to take care of this in Executive Session.  Ask chair to discuss this

Peter:  Talked to the Legislative counsel if this is the correct form.  Leg attorney said 195 of code.  Open in confidential matter until decision made   Open Meetings act C4  may be used for govt records by law requires it to be confidential.  Two other exceptions - Matters of immediate knowledge - since discussing legal strategy if sued, so it's important someone who might sue us won't know 

If prejudice reputation - we could.  Leg attorney said she doesn't represent us.  Feels we're on solid ground.  

Comments by Board members about doing this in Executive Session.  

Budd:  Moves to go into ES Open meeting act - records not subject to public disclosure.  

Nicole:  Seconded

John:  Opposition?  Passes by unanimous consent.  

3:10  You will now be disconnected.  

Responding To ADN Commentaries On Systemic Racism And White Privilege

I want to respond to two recent Anchorage Daily News commentaries on race.  The first titled:  "Is our problem with racism systemic?"  Michael Oblath asked whether racism was genetically built into human beings, because, as he writes,

"If true, how could we ever heal?"  

And in the next sentence he essentially says no.

"Racism then, is a conscious choice we make, and is not systemic"

 I have questions about how he reached that conclusion, but my main concern is how he framed ‘systemic racism’ as an individual issue rather than how it’s normally seen,  as a societal systemic issue.  Perhaps, given the word constraints the ADN imposes, he left out any mention of societal systemic racism.  But because he wrote, "Racism then . . . is not systemic" I feel compelled to reply.

Our society has built legal, educational, financial, and cultural obstacles  that systematically set up barriers for people of color, particularly black Americans, that white Americans don't face. 

Housing covenants kept black Americans from buying property in white neighborhoods. Red-lining kept property values low in black neighborhoods and made loans in those neighborhoods hard to get, keeping property values there low.  Schools in those neighborhoods were poorer so the students had a harder time getting into colleges.  So people couldn't get the kind of jobs that would move them out of poverty.  Bank loans in those ghettos were hard to get, so starting a business was a greater challenge than in white areas.

The media - news, tv, films - projected images of blacks living in slums, poor, uneducated, and likely criminals. Politicians campaigned with these biased images. Reagan railed against "Welfare Queens in Cadillacs.”

These biased portrayals,  reinforced whites stereotypes of blacks.  The forces that kept black baseball players out of major league baseball for so long have also kept blacks out of other white domains.  Instead of seeing the systemic legal and administrative barriers, whites internalized these images of  people with no work ethic, with lower educational ability, who often turned to crime.

Thus teachers assumed they were less intelligent.  Lenders believed they wouldn't pay back their loans.  Employers feared they wouldn't work hard and honestly.

Thus systemic societal racism was reinforced by individual prejudice.  Without being aware of and understanding this systemic racism, it is very hard to understand the concept of White Privilege which was the topic of the second commentary I want to address. by Alexander Dolitsky, titled:

"White privilege in America today"

Dolitsky tells how he immigrated to the US from Russia at age 25 with nothing and has managed to overcome obstacles to success.  I sincerely congratulate him on his achievements.

It seems, though, that Dolitsky feels he did all this through his own hard work and that white privilege played no part.  "What exactly is my ‘white privilege?’  I and millions of other immigrants faced challenges not encountered by people born and raised here . . .”  He resents being accused of benefiting from 'white privilege.'  He writes:  

"I and many other Caucasian immigrants are supposed to be ashamed because we are white? I am offended by this racial slur — or stereotype."

I’d note that my parents were 17 and 23 when they arrived in the US, alone, with very little, and learned English and made successful lives in the US too.  

To respond to  Dolitsky's belief people think he should be ashamed of being white:  No, immigrants need not be ashamed of being white. And yes, Dolitsky’s hard work was the key to his success.  But the structural racism I outlined above meant it was easier for him than, say, an immigrant from Somalia or Haiti. 

Black immigrants, in addition to the things Dolitsky faced,  have to worry about being routinely stopped by police because they look ‘suspicious.’ They have greater difficulties renting an apartment or getting a job because of people's stereotypes of black skinned people.  They may find it harder to mingle with white Americans socially, to date white Americans, because of the color of their skin.  

But just as immigrants face obstacles and overcome them, many African-Americans manage to overcome the racial barriers they face as well.  

But even successful blacks know that when they are out in public, they are no longer doctors, lawyers, professors, or CEOs.  They are just seen by many as ‘black’ to use a polite term.  And successful blacks still worry when their teenage kids go out. They know that when white teenagers get rowdy, it's "kids just being kids." But when black kids do the same thing, they are much more likely to be arrested.

If one only sees systemic racism as an individual problem and not a societal problem as Oblath discusses it, then one doesn’t see all the structural systemic obstacles that blacks face in the US that whites don’t face. 

We could say that White privilege = (obstacles blacks face) - (obstacles similarly situated whites face.)  By 'similarly situated' I mean whites who basically have a very similar background and general characteristics as a comparable black.  Yes, for example, disabled whites have obstacles most able-bodied people don't have.  But not as many as a disabled black person with basically the same background.   

So, no, Dolitsky shouldn't be ashamed of his white skin.  And he should be proud of what he’s achieved. But he should recognize that if he’d immigrated from Africa, he would have faced additional obstacles.  Those additional obstacles are what we call 'White Privilege.'  

Talking about “White Privilege” doesn’t take away any of his achievements.  But denying white privilege exists makes it harder to dismantle the extra obstacles black Americans face. 

And I'd note many, if not most, white Americans have no sense of the daily indignities many blacks face, simply because they are blacks. Many blacks have dealt with this by limiting their interactions in the world as much as possible to places where they are known.   So it's much easier to understand an immigrant not understanding.  White media, until very recently, has ignored all this.  The narrative has been that once legal segregation was over, everyone was treated the same.  

What Do Evil And Plague Look Like?

Let's start with Evil.  I first learned Alex Gibney's name when Taxi To The Dark Side played at the 2006 Anchorage International Film Festival.  The story of the Afghan taxi driver who ends up tortured and dying in Baghram Air Force Base.  It was powerful and my favorite doc that year and probably my favorite film overall.  And it went on to win an Oscar for best feature documentary.  Gibney has made a lot of films since then.

Netflix has Slumloard Millionaire up now, a look at Jared Kushner's real estate world.  One section of the film looks at how Kushner bought rent controlled apartment buildings in NYC and then practiced all sorts of harassment techniques to get renters out - ceilings fall in from floods above, jackhammers all night, nothing repaired, toxic materials, etc.

Then there's the story of 666 Fifth Avenue which Kushner bought when prices were sky-high, just before the 2008 crash.  And how he then had to scramble to find money to pay his debts.  Among the schemes was squeezing low income tenants in his various buildings - and the film particularly focuses on the Baltimore area.  There are late fees, tacked onto rent that get deducted so that the renter hasn't paid the full rent which allows for more fees the next month.  Meanwhile the renter doesn't know any of this is happening and just keeps paying the regular rent and falling further behind. While this nickle-and-diming can't raise what Kushner needs, over thousands of tenants it adds up.  A reporter walks the neighborhood and shows us all the doors with shaming notices prominently taped onto people's door.  Then there's the lady who has complained about the lack of repairs in her apartment and gotten a signed waiver to leave her lease.  Three years later she starts getting notices from JKSomethingLLC.  She has no idea who that is.  They are demanding $3000 for cutting out on her lease three years ago. She no longer has the waiver, she never thought she'd still need it.  Fortunately, an investigative reporter finds her and writes about her.  That gets her an attorney who locates the housing records that prove her allegation she left legally.  And JK suddenly and magnanimously agrees to drop the bill.

This is just evil.  And this is one of the key people advising the president.   Some even say he's running a shadow coronavirus task force made up of business leaders.  But we don't get daily reports from them.  The behavior highlighted in the movie is fair warning for Kushner's task force is to help him and business campaign supporters figure out how to siphon off as much of the money earmarked to fight Coronavirus as possible.  helps himself and his father-in-law to every spare dollar they can get off the government.    Trump even referred to the head of Carnival Cruises today as his friend Micky who is offering cruise ships for non-COVID-19 hospitals.  I'm sure 'offering' as in I'll only charge twice what I would make if all my ships weren't sitting idle now.  (I'd note that Carnival owns Princess Lines.)


Now let's switch to Plague.  Here's a paragraph from an article by Jennifer Cooke, a plague expert.  She wrote her dissertation on the Bubonic Plague and then converted it to a book.  She writes about how she hadn't expected to experience one.

"What can I tell you about contagious epidemics? What will happen to us? Soon, we will see people scared of one another. Soon, a celebrity with COVID-19 will die. Soon, infected houses will display a sign warning delivery drivers and neighbours. Or non-infected houses will, attempting to reassure. Soon, there will be pets without owners, newly made strays fending for themselves. The most vulnerable will suffer even more. Domestic violence rates will sky-rocket. We will see armed forces patrol the streets. We will tell each other incredible stories we have heard of cruelty, of misery, but also of heroism, of generosity. There will be social unrest. There will be cult weirdos and strange beliefs, doomsters baying about the end of times. There will be exploiters, quacks, and fraudsters. But there will also be simple kindnesses, more phone calls between family members, between friends. We will all work less, if at all. There will be absurdity. And there will be incredible community support, for the people by the people. There will be ingenious new forms of entertainment and the revival of older forms that we have forgotten or stashed at the back of the cupboard. There will be incredible boredom and a lot of cleaning. This is what my knowledge tells me."

There's lots more there.  She also gets into Daniel Defoe's book on the plague, which ADN write Michael Carey also wrote about today.   There's also a link to the original Journal of The Plague Year for people who want a preview of what's coming.  (Times are different.  Science plays a bigger role now, but we still have many religious charlatans who use calamity to their advantage.  (As I recall, every natural disaster during he Obama years was a sign from God.  I don't see that so much not that the charlatan in chief is in office.)

Two Excellent ADN Letters To The Editor - One On Climate Change, One On Ambler Road

In this time of strong partisan divide, of fake news, and intentional distortion of facts, and even creation of totally fabricated stories, I'd like to share two excellent letters from today's Anchorage Daily News(ADN).  But I also recognize that in this age I probably need to explain why I rate them so highly.  I'll do that later. But first I'll let you look at the letters yourselves.  Well, I'm only excerpting them, you can see the complete letters at the links.*

First, from Kendra Zamzow** of Chickaloon:

"Climate Change is not an environmental issue.
It’s a real estate issue when people leave behind homes destroyed or at risk from fire and coastal erosion. It’s a public health issue when saltwater seeps into drinking water wells as seas rise. It’s a public health crisis when heat kills hundreds or thousands of people.
It’s a public works issue when major cities like Miami run pumps to de-flood city streets and sidewalks.
It’s an infrastructure issue when railroads collapse and roads melt. It’s an agricultural issue when sustained flooding prevents crops from being planted. It’s a ranching issue when drought forces cattlemen to kill their herds. It’s a national security risk when military bases repeatedly flood, leaving planes and equipment stranded.
It’s an immigration issue when crops fail and farmers move, seeking land or work. It’s a defense issue when water tables drop, disrupting livelihoods and driving conflict. It’s a food resources issue when warm ocean waters drive algal blooms that cause shellfish to be poisonous .  . ."

Second, from Rachael Gaedeke of Anchorage:

[*It turns out the second letter is not yet posted online in the ADN.  I'll offer you part of it and will put up a link when the whole letter is available.]  It talks about the hearings to take testimony on the Ambler Road, being proposed into roadless land for the benefit of a private mining project. The letter was written by Raechel Gaedeke:

"When I read through the DEIS, it was sadly apparent that no one had thought to address the negative social impact of this proposed 211-mile road. . .
"Study after study has shown that when mines are built, the communities closest suffer from increased rates of alcoholism, increased rates of domestic violence and increased rates of sexual assault.  The villages in proximity to this propose road and this potential mine(s) do not have the resources to support the influx of miners, truckers and "man camps" that will follow.  I greatly fear for the women and children in every village that comes close to the proposed Ambler Road. . .
"I strongly urge BLM to address the following questions:
1.  How will you ensure the safety of the women and children living in the communities within proximity to this proposed road and the mine(s) that will follow?
2.  What security measures will be taken to ensure that alcohol or drugs will not be bootlegged into the communities via this road either by truckers employed by the mine(s) or potential poachers?
5.  What security measures will you take to keep poachers off the road . . .
6.  How will you prevent the potential for sex trafficking on this road via truckers, poachers, etc. into the mine(s) or the man camps or the villages?
7.  When More police officers  and Village Public Safety Officers are needed, who will pay?
8.  How will you research and document and mitigate the potential for negative social impact on the indigenous people in the region of the proposed mine . . ." 

So, what makes these good letters?

1. They broaden the scope of the issues.  The climate change one moves the discussion from simply 'record temperatures' or 'more intense storms and fires' to all the many ways a warming climate is going to affect people.  These things are already affecting many people, but the scope will get greater and greater.  This is not somebody else's problem.  It's a human problem.  The Ambler Road letter moves the discussion from narrow physical environmental impacts of the road to the social impacts of this sort of large scale remote development tends to bring with it.
2. These letters are sensational.  The issues they raise are well documented.  
3. I can't spot any factual fabrications or distortions.  
4. They pack a lot of information into relatively few words, though the Ambler Road letter is a little repetitive in its list of questions, though what I'm calling repetitive points seem to focus on a slightly different aspect.
5. The language of each letter is clear and easy to understand.  It's strong, but focuses on issues and does not attack individuals or categories of individuals.  (That last sentence should go without saying, but nowadays needs to be said more and more.)

I realize those who emotionally deny climate change will be unhappy with the first letter and call it alarmist.  The nearly 70% of US residents who think it's real and are worried about climate warming will learn more about the many likely impacts. (If they want to do something to help slow down climate change they can check out the Citizens Climate Lobby website.)

And those financially in favor of the Ambler Road, really are responsible for answering the questions raised.  Can they prevent these likely externalities of their project?  If not, should the State of Alaska allow a project that is likely to add to Alaska's high level of sexual violence to a large extent fueled by drugs and alcohol, and to increase sex trafficking?

So I thank these two letter writers for their strong and articulate letters raising important issues for Alaskans (and all US residents) to consider.  And I thank the ADN for publishing them.


**I didn't know anything about Zamzow when I read the letter in the hardcopy paper today (Yes, it's still coming.)  But there's a brief biographical blurb in the online version, which helps explain why the author wrote such a powerful letter:

"Kendra Zamzow, a resident of Chickaloon, is an environmental chemist and the Alaska representative for the Center for Science in Public Participation. She has a doctorate in environmental chemistry from the University of Nevada, Reno and a bachelor's degree in molecular and cellular biology from Humboldt State University, California."

The Last Newspaper?

I got an annual bill for the Anchorage Daily News a while back.  But I had also just been informed that their new policy was no more door step delivery.  Newspapers on the driveway.  So it now sits very close to the sidewalk where someone walking by could easily pick it up.  (There was a period when someone was actually getting it off our doorstep every morning.)

But I've also grown comfortable being able to open the door on a snowy day and reach out and get the paper.  I don't have to put on shoes to walk through the snow.  The paper has gotten skinnier.  Then we lost Saturday papers.  And now no more doorstep deliveries.

I understand daily newspapers are dying across the country. I want to support my local paper.   But each cutback of this or that content or service is one step too far for one segment or another of the customer base. And those people stop subscribing.  So the cost savings becomes a revenue loss.

Is this my step too far?  They called  Tuesday to let me know my subscription was ending.  So I was surprised to see the paper in the driveway today.  I did tell her I hadn't decided if I was going to renew because of the change in the delivery.

It takes, at most, 30 seconds to get out of the car, run up the driveway, and get the paper on our doorstep.  For six days of delivery, that's 180 seconds or three minutes.  For a month, it's around 12 minutes.  What am I willing to pay for that?  I think $20 an hour is fair for someone delivering papers.

I think the ADN should give readers an option.  For $21 a month, they can have the paper delivered to the door step.  The carrier would get all the money, not the newspaper.

Now let me complicate it a bit.  We're gone maybe a total of three months between November  and early March.  While we're gone we just get the electronic version.

I'll send them this post.  If it's too complicated for them administratively, maybe they can give me the phone number of the paper carrier and I can work it out with her or him.

GCI Sends Us A Bill, ADN Ends Door Step Deliveies

When I went through the mail that had accumulated while we were gone, I came across an envelope from GCI.  Inside was a bill.  For $0.00.

Even odder than the amount, is the fact that we don't have any accounts with GCI.  Our cell phone isn't with them and our home line and internet aren't either.

I did call to check.  The person there suggested our other accounts don't have long distance and that's why.  But they do have long distance.  She said she'd remove us from the list.  But how did we get on the list?  A mystery.

[As I look at it now again, with the picture - do you think Alaska Airlines gave them my information?  I don't think the reservations line people will know the answer and it's Sunday so the administrative offices are closed.  Is it even worth the effort to find out?  There are much more important things to do.  And that's how 'the people' are worn down, by so many, to borrow a word from those fighting racism and sexism, micro-attacks that it's hard to choose our battles intelligently.]

And when our newspaper delivery began again when we got back home, it wasn't at our doorstep.  I had to look around before spotting it at the bottom of the driveway.  It was halfway up the driveway the next day and in the flowerbed the next day.  And a little wet from the rain, despite its plastic wrapper.

With only a few exceptions, our paper has been reachable without stepping out of the house for as long as I can remember.  What gives?  We must have a new carrier.

When the Anchorage Daily News didn't call to check if our delivery had begun again - as they usually do - I called to ask that our carrier go back to doorstep delivery.  (I put in a small tip each time the bill comes to thank the delivery person for getting it on doorstep.)

But I was told the ADN has changed their delivery policy to not having the delivery folks get out of their vehicles.  Driveway delivery.  Well I can deal with that now, but come winter, I don't really want to look through the snow to find the paper, let alone have to get dressed and shoed just to get the paper.  But that's their new rule.

I understand that newspapers are being squeezed.  But these sorts of cost saving measures don't sit well with me.  Do I need a hard copy?  I managed on the trip to read it online.  But I already read way too much online and enjoy holding the paper copy over breakfast.  And doing any of the puzzles on line is a pain.

Apparently I'm not the only one calling about this.  I was immediately put through to a supervisor who was pleasant enough, but the decision he has to defend is not a user friendly one.

Am I getting old and crotchety and resistant to change?  I'm sure that's an element in this, but really.  This is something I'm willing to spend a little extra for, but I don't have that opportunity.  I want to support my local newspaper, and for that reason I'll probably go along with this in the end, but they're making it harder and harder..

And all those leaves in the driveway - it's only July.  I think the heat and the aphid are responsible. It's not fall yet.

"If we want more stability in state services, there’s a simple answer"

That was the title of an ADN editorial board editorial Sunday.  

First and most obvious, if there were a simple answer it would have been found long ago.  There are no simple answers in politics or government (which are not the same things, though they overlap.)

So what is that simple answer according to the editorial board?

After listing numerous shortfall's in this year's budget, they tell us:

"There’s also a simple solution that would go far toward helping restore that stability: Honesty in the budgeting process."

I agree that honesty in the budget process is helpful for the public to understand what's going on.  But is it simple?  Hell no.

First, the budget has to account for billions of dollars, so it's going to be long and complicated no matter what.  But sure, there are ways to make it easier to follow or harder to follow.
Second, the politicians - the governor and the legislators - who are trying to please constituents and funders with rewards that might not be appreciated by most, try to hide those items.   Questionable special favor allocations or cuts are well hidden in rows and columns of numbers that are hard to comprehend.
Third,  in these times of ideological warfare, many items will come under attack no matter how good they are for the general public.  Either they're ideologically unacceptable for one side or the other, or they might appear as a 'win' for one side and loss for the other.
These are just a few reasons why achieving a transparent budget is NOT simple.

Let's move on to the third paragraph of the editorial:

 "Sometimes, as with the senior benefits program, speedier processing of benefit applications results in more people than expected joining a program, draining funds more quickly. But failing to foresee scenarios like that - or deal with them swiftly when they arise - is a failure of leadership. Like not considering prices below $60 per barrel of oil as a realistic possibility for tax purposes, as happened before the 2014 price slump, failing to recognize or plan for the possibility of an uptick in benefit recipients is an indictment of our elected and appointed representatives."

OK, usually people are complaining that government doesn't act fast enough.  But when they do, they get criticized too.  Are they saying that by getting eligible people into the program quickly, the cost is too high?  If so, it's one of the few times I've seen government criticized for doing too good a job.

Let's look at the failure of leadership comment.

"But failing to foresee scenarios like that - or deal with them swiftly"   

Government is not a business where the CEO has the final say.  In a democratic government, decision making power is divided in different ways.  Broad policy making is supposed to be reserved for elected officials and their helpers, the high level appointed officials.  Career public servants are then asked to fill in the mechanical details of,  and then carry out, the policies.

But it's more complicated than that.  Power is split between the governor's office and the legislature (and, if needed, the courts.)  But the legislature is further split between the Senate and the House.  And each of those bodies is split between Republicans and Democrats and a few independents.

Leadership in such a situation isn't easy.  What's needed is peacemakers, maybe even therapists, as much as leaders.  But how do you make peace with people who see you as the enemy and whose supporters (voters and funders) tell them not to compromise?

In contrast, a marriage is simple.  There are only two policy makers and possibly some subjects of the policy (children.)  Often in a marriage, one of the two policy makers dominates the other.  Occasionally, the two work together in harmony.  But frequently they fight and disagree on everything.

Ask any divorce attorney how 'simple' it is to get angry spouses to work out the settlement of their property, and custody of the kids, even of the dog.


Then the editorial talks about oil tax credits.

 "they’re a classic example of the state’s destabilizing tendency to make a promise and then leave those who make plans based on that promise holding the bag, making residents wary and businesses disinclined to make investments in Alaska."

And to not look partisan, the editorial suggests the administration oughtn't renege on the two year school funding or senior benefits.

But this is the nature of a two year legislature that cannot commit funds beyond their two year session. (And since the new session just began, last year's commitments aren't law.)  It's also the nature of the power of large corporations to extract benefits from a legislature it paid for (in campaign contributions, in propaganda campaigns, and strong arm lobbying.)

When a commitment is made against the strong objections of the minority, then when that minority gets more power, that commitment will be challenged.  The oil companies have been telling Alaskans for years how they're going to pick up and leave if they don't get their way.  Well, either they've been bluffing or they've been getting their way.   [Figuring out comparative tax regimes is even more opaque than the Alaska budget.  Here's a long essay on whether Alaska oil taxes are fair by King Economics Group.  Unfortunately it doesn't compare our taxes to those of other oil producing states and countries.   And, it turns out, Ed King, according to his LinkedIn page,  has been Alaska's Chief Economist since Dunleavy took control in December 2018.    This ISER report also is focused only on in-state.   This OPEC comparison of oil taxes isn't about the industry taxes, but taxes at the pump. Finally, this ADN article says ConocoPhillips' Alaska region is its most profitable by far.  But that's not the point of this post, but I didn't want to make a statement without some backup.]

In the last paragraph, the ADN comes to its conclusion.

"So what’s the better answer? Make the hard choices — fund services fully or be up-front about the fact that they’ve been cut — instead of kicking the can down the road."

So, now they seem to be acknowledging that the 'simple' answer is really a 'hard choice.'  They don't talk about who has been kicking that can.  About the Republicans being in power for most of the last ten years when the budget kept going up, or how the Democrats have been trying to raise revenues with income or sales taxes, but the Republicans continue to block that.

Their simple isn't simple.  It's pap.

Here's a headline that caught my eye several years ago.

"For GOP presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina, solving the nation’s biggest challenges is pretty simple — “it’s not rocket science,” as she likes to say."

Here was my response:  Note To Carly Fiorina: Solving Nation's Problems Harder Than Rocket Science  It delves into other aspects of the difficulty of good government.

Salmon Roe Technicians Wanted

For something a little different today.

Sunday's Anchorage Daily News classified section included a bunch of long ads for:

1.   Salmon Roe Technicians:  5 Temporary, full time positions to work from 6/1/2019 to 9/20/2019. Work will be performed at plant in Valdez, AK.  Responsible for processing salmon roe to produce Ikura and Sujiko (Japanese salmon roe products) for export to Japan.  [Then there's a long description of all they have to do such as "sorting, salting, preserving, brining, seasoning, mixing, agitating, dewatering"  and then inspecting and packing, and providing technical expertise in grading and quality control  . . .]

This positions is 40 hours a week plus up to 40 hours overtime for $14.50/hour and $21.75/hour overtime.  It includes transportation to the site, housing and meals, and transportation back "if the worker completes half the employment period or is dismissed early by the employers."

Experience needed?  two years of this work processing roe for the Japanese market and knowledge of processing and grading standards for the Japanese market.

The employer is Pac-Maru Inc.  Seattle (which is a subsidiary of  Toyo Suisan Kaisha Ltd..)

2.  Salmon Roe Technicians:  5 temporary, full-time positions to work from 5/5/2019 to 9/20/2019.  These will be at "3 land plants in Kenai  and Kasilof, AK.  This one is pretty similar, but it's up to 44 hours overtime and pays $15/hour and $22/hour overtime.

This one is from North Pacific Seafoods, Seattle

3.  Also Salmon Roe Technicians - this one for Cordova, Naknek, Togiak, Unalakleet, and/or Kenai, AK.   $14.50/hour and $21.50/hour overtime.

The employer Nomura Trading Co., Ltd, Bellevue, WA.

4.  Peter Pan Seafoods is looking for 9 Salmon Roe Technicians - for Dillingham and Valdez.  This ad has much the same details though the language is a little different.  It only pays $14.48/hour and $21.72/hour over time, but it has up to 50 hours of overtime possible.  They'll also pay for visa and border crossing expenses.  And you apply, not to the company, but to the Alaska Dept. of Labor.

Here are some worker comments about Peter Pan Seafoods.

5.  Westwood Seafoods has openings for 7 seafood processing technicians (surimi and roe) in Dutch Harbor.  "Must be willing to work up to 12 or more hours per day, 7 days per week, depending on fish availability.  Big difference here:  Wage is $20-$40/hour DOE plus health insurance and potential for bonus.  Overtime at $30-$60 per hour DOE.  Free room and board as well, however, return transportation paid only if employee works the whole contract or is dismissed.  (Getting back from Dutch Harbor is a lot more than Valdez or Kenai!)  And the contract is from 5/24 to 10/24/2019.  Again, apply at Alaska Dept. of Labor.

6.  Premier Pacific Seafoods, Inc has openings for 3 seafood processing technicians (surimi and roe) on board M/ Excellence or the Phoenix vessel in the Bering Sea and North Pacific.  Wages here are $16.65 to $30/hour and $24.98 to $45/hour overtime, depending on experience, or if higher, $235 - $300 per day, plus health insurance, possible bonus, and room and board.
Here are some worker comments about Premier Pacific. 

7.  Finally Nicherei U.S.A. LLC has 25 openings for Salmon Roe Technicians "at multiple work sites in SW Alaska, incl. plants in Cordova, Kodiak, Naknek, and Valdez.  35 regular hours at $14.48/hour and up to 30 additional at $21.72/hour overtime.  This one has slightly different wording about food and lodging.  The others said this was free.  This one includes it in a sentence about travel to site (reimbursed if complete half the period) and travel back (if complete whole period.)  The wording suggests that meals will be covered if half the contract is worked.


I understand that lots of college students go work in fish processing plants and on fishing ships over the summer for the adventure and the pay that comes with all the overtime.  But it would seem to me that a Salmon Roe Technician with two years experience are harder to find and should get paid more than minimum wage.  The only two companies here paying more than minimum wage are Westwood Seafoods and Premier Pacific Seafoods, though the later is on a ship which adds more adventure but also much more risk.

NOTE:  I saw these ads in the print edition and couldn't find them online. They're on pages C-2 and C-3, of the Sunday Anchorage Daily News, March 17, 2019.

Thank You Dermot Cole For Keeping The Heat Of Facts On The Gov

Dermot Cole was one of the writers let go by the Alaska Dispatch News when the Binkley's took over the paper.

Well he's blogging like crazy now - fact checking everything the governor and his minions say.

Today there's a list of quotes from Dunleavy on the campaign.  It's in answer to Paul Jenkins' attempt to convince people we should have expected this because Dunleavy is doing what he said he'd do.

People who ousted Dunleavy from Kotzebue and people who carefully watched the hearings Dunleavy chaired on Erin's Law expected the worst.  But not based on what he said, but what he did.

And Cole points out all the things Dunleavy said either explicitly or implicitly about not cutting the ferry system, the university, schools, etc.

It's worth a read.  Find Dermot Cole's Blog Here.    Here's the beginning:

"Paul Jenkins, who has been pontificating about Alaska for nearly as long as I have, wrote a column in the Anchorage Daily News saying that the giant budget cuts proposed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy are in keeping with the Dunleavy campaign promises.
That’s what people who didn’t pay attention to Dunleavy’s promises are now claiming."

Heavy Rains In San Francisco While Alaska Hit By Unnatural Disaster As Dunleavy Reveals Budget

From Accu Weather:

"Atmospheric river to fuel torrential rain in California"

It was raining steadily, but not terribly hard as we caught the bus to the CalTrain station this afternoon to visit good friends who live a little south of SF.

But the disaster happening in Alaska is totally man-made.  The ads promised a balanced budget and Permanent Fund Dividends forever.  They were paid for, in large,  by candidate Dunleavy's brother.  And the people who vote based on such ads and party identification - but ignore any kind of obvious signs, like the ones I saw at the special hearings set to pass Erin's Law.  





The Alaska state budget is a daunting document.  While I acknowledge that it is complicated, often the people preparing a budget have a vested interest in making it as confusing as possible.  Terms aren't clearly explained or the explanation is hard to find, especially online.  The lists of budget terms online like this one and this one don't explain all the terms and acronyms used in the budget.

Quantities aren't always clarified - like how many zeros you need to add to the numbers in columns to get the actual number.  Often people hide things they don't want people to discover - like funding for a pet project or removal of funding from an agency.

And there are different types of budgets.  Operating and Capital Budgets for instance.  But also Unrestricted General Fund That's all preface to the next item.

x

Screen Shot Budget 2020-02-13 by on Scribd

Note:  I'm not even sure what LF means on this page GF is General Fund.  Unrestricted means the funds are restricted to a specific use.  This page comes from here.  But at the State's Budget page you can find a whole slew of different takes on the budget.

I've just highlighted the education parts of the budget.  Despite the fact that Dunleavy taught in public schools in rural Alaska as well as being principal and a superintendent, this budget show total disdain for public schooling.  That was already clear when he talked about 'parental rights' at the Erin's Law hearings.  The parental right movement is related to the father's rights movement.  It's also connected to the home-schooling movement.  There's a touch of anti-government and a tough of fundamentalist religion and a touch of so called 'traditional family values.'  And it was clear to me back in 2012 that Dunleavy would try to cut public schooling if he were in a position to do it.  (Let me say that like in any group that forms, there are people with legitimate issues about how they were treated.  But a number of movements are really protests against losing power they once had - like men's power over their wives has eroded quite a bit over the last 100 years.  See this article on father's rights groups.

"The fathers’ rights movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as fathers and as men, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. Fathers’ rights groups overlap with men’s rights groups and both represent an organised backlash to feminism. Fathers’ rights groups can be seen as the anti-feminist wing of a range of men’s and fathers’ groups which have emerged in recent years, in the context of profound shifts in gender, intimate and familial relations over the past four decades (Flood, 2010). While fathers’ rights groups share common themes, there are also diversities in their degree of opposition to feminism, their involvements in political advocacy, their reliance on Christian frameworks, and so on.Three experiences in particular bring men into the fathers’ rights movement. Painful experiences of divorce and separation, as well as accompanying experiences of family law and the loss of contact with one’s children, produce a steady stream of men who can be recruited into fathers’ rights groups"

And here's a piece on parental rights from a Home School website.

I offer those links, not as 'proof' or as an exhaustive review of the topic, but just as an appetizer to become more aware of the code words 'parental rights' which sounds very reasonable on the surface.  I think the link to the Home Schooling movement helps predict this budget.

The other issue that people have raised with this budget is the 'visiting budget director' as Dermot Cole dubbed Donna Arduin.  I haven't done adequate research on her, so for the time being, you can look at this (Sarasota) Herald-Examiner article form 2014 that reviews her run as a Libertarian 'expert' budget slasher, whose budget analyses are regularly debunked by real economists.

Sometimes being in Alaska and late on Lower 48 trends is a good thing.  We can learn from others' experiences.  Here's hoping that Alaskans will figure out really quick what we've done by electing Dunleavy before too much damage is done. Here's hoping we can learn from what's happened in Kansas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.  [UPDATE Feb 14, 2019:  I added Kansas and links for a little more background about those states' outcomes of cutting taxes and government.]

Hopefully, those who blindly believed Dunleavy's promises to get people all their back PFD checks AND balance the budget without any new revenues, will realize it was all a scam before the state infrastructure for schools and health and safety are destroyed.  Perhaps the people who are now finding out that those tax rebates Trump promised are not really coming, will transfer that awareness to what Dunleavy is trying to pull off.