How Much Does It Cost To Eat Out In Anchorage? The Redistricting Board Thinks $6o A Day Isn't Enough

The staff of the Redistricting Board today recommended a per meeting compensation of $477 a per diem for meals of $60, and incidental costs allowance of $25, and a ground travel allowance of $60. The incidentals were taken from the previous Board that said often they carry lots of maps and other displays for traveling to various communities and that requires extra costs getting those things onto planes.  Hotel allowances were "actual costs." 

I thought, overall, the Board members sounded responsible about this.  While I personally think pay for such service should be more like an honorarium, I also don't think they should have to pay out of pocket to travel to the meetings and spend the night away from home.  Further what was approved was within the general parameters of other Boards and Commissions.  

A couple members of the Alaska Redistricting Board today said the equivalent of "You can't eat three meals in Anchorage for $60."  In the end they combined the meal allowance and the incidentals into a single category of $85, which, for the most part means there's now an $85 a day meal allowance.  Any incidentals above that need receipts and approval to get reimbursed.  So, that also means that if the Board member eats for $50 a day, they'll probably get an extra $35.  (I don't think they need to show actual costs below $85, but I'm not sure.)

I also don't think that the Board should be put in the position to decide how much they should get paid.  The legislature should spell out guidelines for this.  

All that said, I think it's also reasonable to consider that lots of people are eating courtesy of the Food Bank these days.  That lots of Anchorage kids are not eating much at all because schools aren't open and they aren't getting the free meals they normally get there.  And there are lots of people who, when they go out to eat, go to food courts, fast food restaurants, or order pizzas.  

I'd also guess that everyone on the Board has made contributions to charity greater than they'll get back in the $25 per diem they'll get each time they travel.  So, just for appearances, it would be a nice gesture for Board members to accept the $60 limit and if they want to eat fancier than that, or have drinks with their meals, they pay for that out of pocket.  After all, if they stayed home, they would probably spend at least $25 on food anyway.  

I've traveled for work and I know that it's often useful to have meals with colleagues at conferences. But the Board members can't get together in groups of more than two (I think) without it being considered a secret, un-noticed Board Meeting.  And the Board members are all likely folks who know lots of people in Anchorage who will invite them for a meal while they are in town.

But to help them find places to eat for under $60 I here's Trip Advisor's list of place to eat on the cheap in Anchorage.  I suspect they are so refined that they can't eat at these places while they are in town for meetings.  

Here's the menu for one place on the list:  Arctic Road Runner:

"BIGGER, BETTER, MEATY BURGERS

the following are 1/4 pound patties, served on a hamburger bun, unless otherwise roasted. we cook our burgers "medium well" unless you request otherwise.

"All American $4.35

ketchup, mustard, onion.

Alaskan Banquet $5.25

mayo, lett, tom, onion.

Arctic Cheese $5.50

mayo, lett, tom, onion & amer cheese.

Bacon Burger $6.30

mayo, lett, tom, onion, amer cheese & bacon.

Pepper Burger $5.95

mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile pepper & mozz. cheese.

Kodiak Islander $6.15

mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile peppers 1/2 slice. each: bologna, salami, ham, amer, mozz, cheese. an onion ring to top it off.

Kenai Whopper $6.50

our biggest meaty burger. two 1/4 pound patties, mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile pepper & mozz cheese.

Mexican Burger $5.95

mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile pepper, meat sauce & amer cheese.

Nature Burger $6.15

on a wheat bun. mayo, sprouts tom, onion & mozz, cheese, not this is not veggie burger."

Uncle Joe's Pizzeria has pizzas from $8.99 to $13.99 and a bunch of salads for under $6.  

Most dishes at the Thai Kitchen are $13 and rice comes free.  Three people could have a filling meal sharing, Thai style, a green curry, pad thai, and cashew chicken.

There are pages and pages of places to eat on Trip Advisor's list.  

Campobello Bistro is a little more upscale, with real tablecloths even, but you can get several different pastas for under $20.  Yes, if you add a salad and dessert, you're going to have to keep your breakfast and lunch combined under $20.  [UPDATE Jan 27, 2021:  a reader informed me this restaurant has closed.]

Part of me says, this is small potatoes.  The state spent too many millions buying ANWR drilling leases in (legitimate) fear that no one else would bid.  

Another part of me says, a few dollars here and a few dollars there start to add up.  Assume the five members of the Board all spend $85 for meals when they travel to Anchorage for meetings - if and when it's safe to do that - say for 100 days.  How much does that extra $25 add up to?  (Some may travel more than others, but just to ballpark this let's go with this.  The last Board ended up taking three years to get their work done, so I'm sure there will be more than 100 per diems racked up by the Board.)  

That's $25 X 5 X 100 = $12,500.  Again, not a lot in terms of Alaska's budget. But $12,500 savings here and $10,000 savings there, adds up.  The Governor says that we have to make millions more in cuts to the Alaska budget. Other legislators argue there's fat to be cut. Well, here's a place to do that. It's not so much large expenditures that are they problem.  They get lots of scrutiny.  It's more stuff like this that tends to be invisible in the budget.  

And, while the Board member bios aren't up yet for the Board members, it doesn't appear to me that any of these people are strapped for money.  They don't have to do this to make ends meet.  It's an honor and a public service to be performed.  One Board member today said that when members of her Corporation serve on boards like this on company time, they get the boards to give the money straight to the corporation.  (I'm guessing she makes a lot more on her regular salary anyway.)

And a third part of me thinks about the fact that these Board members are doing this for the people of Alaska.  How connected are they with the people of Alaska if they either can't imagine how to eat out in Anchorage for $60 a day or they can't imagine eating at places that don't have cloth table cloths and where they can't get a few drinks with the meals.  (The Board did not talk about whether the meal allowance will cover drinks too.)  $60 a day is more than many families spend a day on food.  

Final Note

This issue isn't really about the Board.  It's about how people in different income brackets think about what is normal, think about what level of restaurant is suitable. It's about a system that goes well beyond the State, where people get perks with their jobs that allow them to stay in hotels and dine in restaurants that would stretch most people's budgets, because the company or in this case the government is paying.  I'm all for reimbursing legitimate expenses, but when government employees are traveling they should be reimbursed to stay in the least expensive accommodations that are clean and and quiet enough to do work and close enough to places they have to go to minimize extra costs for transportation.  If that doesn't suit the traveler, she is free to stay and eat at better places by paying the difference from their own pockets.  I think most Alaskans would agree. Legislators often go after travel budgets when they want to cut agency costs.  I think a lot of travel is necessary.  Much of it has long term benefits to the organization.  Cuts should be on the edges to allow reasonable, but not extravagant travel. 

There was more to the Board meeting and I'll talk about that in a different post.  Tomorrow I hope.  I would add that for the most part I think the Board members discussion was reasonable.  But I do think the issue about not being able to eat in Anchorage for $60 a day does reflect that at least some on the Board have different standards of acceptable eating than many of the people whose district boundaries they are going to be setting.

AIFF2020: The Subject Took Me By Surprise

I finally figured out the Q&A scheduling [it's tricky just seeing the times, so I've put up a schedule on the AIFF2020 page above] and Hometown Pride was going to have the Q&A Thursday at 6pm.

I watched Hometown Pride this afternoon.  This is a fun and easy to watch film about a very out and outgoing gay man who comes back to his tiny Ohio hometown to dance at their annual beauty pageant. Good, not remarkable.  We've seen other versions of this story at AIFF in past years.  

Then I went for Paper Spiders.  I'd been avoiding this one because I wasn't sure I wanted to deal with a mother's mental illness, but its Q&A was also coming up.  

We paused Paper Spiders in the middle so we could watch the Q&A for The Last Days of Capitalism.  This was my favorite feature film and I was looking forward to the session.  It's not quite the same on Zoom as it is live at the festival.  But it was a good discussion.  

The back to Paper Spiders which was surprisingly good, but the mom is definitely delusional and paranoid.  But the story was well told and well acted.  There are lots of very good narrative features at this festival.  The title is referred to visually only briefly in one shot.  It leaves a lot to the viewers imagination.  

Then on to another one I was avoiding, because it looked like it was going to be heavy - The Subject.

This film follows a documentary film maker doing a project on Black young men mostly in Harlem.  The difficulties filming his volatile subjects seems to be the focus.  There's also some tension at home which escalates when he hires an assistant.  But then at the end everything kicks up a bunch of notches and we have an amazing confrontation between the film maker and the mother of one of his subjects who has been killed by gang members.  

I feel a little like a fickle boyfriend, but I've abandoned The Last Days of Capitalism and now my favorite feature is The Subject.  I don't want to say too much about it - I think I've told you more than you need to know already.  Just see it.  The issues - the relationship between the filmmaker and his subjects, particularly if the filmmaker is a privileged white male and the subjects are black kids living in poverty and violence - themselves are powerful.  But the final scene is amazing and where the issues are served up like fireworks.  

There's an interview with the director of The Subject Laney Zipoy here.  The AIFF interview was last Saturday and I haven't figured out how, or if we even can, watch the ones we missed.  

Election Thoughts 2: What Gives the AP (Associated Press) The Right To Call The Election?

 Actually, anyone has the right to call the election at any time.  Whether anyone pays any attention is another matter.  Here, from the India Times, are the details of how the outcome is officially determined. (It's interesting that the first answer to my Google question was the India Times.  Does this have anything to do with a) India being the second most populous country in the world and b) Kamala Harris being the new vice president?):  

"On December 14th, the members of the Electoral College will meet in their respective state capitals to formally vote for the position of president and vice president. On January 6th, 2021, electoral votes will be counted before a joint session of Congress, where the president of the Senate will formally announce the election results."

So, I guess my answer would be that AP can call the election because they have the history and reputation for accuracy and even-handedness that gives them the credibility necessary to be listened to. The AP style manual sets the standard for AP reporters around the world and many other non-AP media use it even if they stray on some points here and there.  

The "ABOUT THE AP' page says:

"The AP's mission is to get it first but first get it right, and to be the first choice for news, by providing the fastest, most accurate reporting from every corner of the globe across all media types and platforms"

I checked the Table of Contents of my 2015 copy to see what they said about calling presidential elections.  Nothing really. 

The index sends us to "election returns" which just gives us technical standards (ie "Use figures with commas eery three digits starting at the right and counting left.")  It also sends you to "vote tabulations" but that too is is just technical standards for what words to use, use numbers for totals, etc.  

I can't find anything on how they call  elections in the Style Manual, but I did google and found this explanation "EXPLAINER: Why AP called the 2020 election for Joe Biden" on AP's website.  It goes into detail how they did it.  

For more about the AP, here's their "Our Story" page.  It covers their 

• Mission,
• History, 
• News Values and Principles, 
• Leadership, 
• Corporate Archives
• Brand

 I'd note that the "Stylebook" (pages 1-296) of the manual is made up of entries in alphabetical order like a dictionary.

I'd also note it says that nothing in the Style Manual may be reproduced without permission.  I've got the picture of the manual and table of contents as part of a news story here.  And a very brief quote.  I'm hoping this isn't in violation of their rules.  

Some Impeachment Cleansing - Old Post On Confucius And Thomas Jefferson

Serendipity plays a big role intros blog.  I got an email from someone who claims to be an English teacher praising an old post of mine and linking to her blog.  It has the normal SEO (Search Engine Optimization) fingerprints, but I did look at the link to my blog in the email.  I didn't see any naturally connections to her theme, but the page did include this four year old post about a movie on Confucius and also Thomas Jefferson useful for Trump induced brain damage. 

Think of this as an attempt to reset our national political/moral thermostat to normal and away from the crazy settings the Trump administration has reset it to.  Or think of it as a lozenge for the political sore throat Trump has given us all.  

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Something For Alaska And US Majority Leaders To Think About

 This comes from the movie Confucius. (孔子 (Kong Zi) Director: Mei Hu).

Confucius consents to an audience with the royal consort of Wei against the wishes of his disciples.  She has a reputation as a beautiful woman with a sketchy past and she clearly is intent on seducing the great scholar.

She starts off by asking about the Book of Odes, and the love poetry in it.

Screen shot from Confucius. (孔子 (Kong Zi) Director: Mei Hu)

He politely rejects her request to become his student and to meet again.  She then asks about his theories of government. 

Screen shots from Confucius. (孔子 (Kong Zi) Director: Mei Hu)

Screen shots from Confucius. (孔子 (Kong Zi) Director: Mei Hu)

Screen shots from Confucius. (孔子 (Kong Zi) Director: Mei Hu)

While there is much about Confucian teaching that is problematic today - particularly his rigid hierarchical power structure and his low regard for women - there is also much of use to our political leaders today.

I'd note that Thomas Jefferson, one of the inspirations of the Tea Party,  was something of a China scholar.  From a scholarly paper "Thomas Jefferson's Incorporating Positive Elements From Chinese Civilization" by Dave Wan. 
(Note that the poem Jefferson clips out in the passage below, is the one referred to by the Royal Consort of Wei in the film - "The Book of Odes."  The poem is a tribute to the Prince of Wei - several hundred years prior to Confucius.)

"Founding Inspiration from the Confucius’ Classics

       In the nineteenth century intellectuals in the United States often enjoyed creating personal scrapbooks, in which they would cut out their “favorite newspaper articles and poems” and past “them onto the backs of old letters to create a sort of personal literary anthology.”  None of us will feel surprised to know that Thomas Jefferson, “an Enlightenment intellectual,” created a scrapbook in his own way. Some time from 1801-1809 Jefferson included in the section of his scrapbook titled Poems of the Nations an ancient Chinese poem from The Book of Odes. His love of the poem provides us with a window through which we can look into his efforts to learn from Chinese culture. What he wanted to learn from the poem?

       Below is Jefferson’s clipping of the poem:

                                           A Very Ancient Chinese Ode
Translated by John Collegins seq
Quoted in the To Hio of Confuciues
(….from a manuscript presented in the Bodlein Library )

SEE! how the silvery river glides,
And leaves' the fields bespangled sides !
Hear how the whispering breeze proceeds!
Harmonious through the verdant reeds!
Observe our prince thus lovely shine!
In him the meek-ey'd virtues join!
Just as a patient carver will, Hard ivory model by his skill,
So his example has impress'd Benevolence in every b[re]ast;
Nice hands to the rich gems, behold,
Impart the gloss of burnish'd gold:
Thus he, in manners, goodly great,
Refines the people of his state. True lenity,
how heavenly fair !
We see it while it threatens,—spare!
What beauties in its open face!
In its deportment—what a grace!
Observe our prince thus lovely shine!
In him the meek-ey'd virtues join!
His mern'ry of eternal prime,
Like truth, defies the power of time!

       The poem pays tribute to Prince Wei from the State of Wei, who was loved, respected and remembered by the people of his state. Confucius (551-479 BC) highly praised Prince Wei, described in the poem, when he quoted this poem in his famous book, The Great Learning, to provide a standard to inspire other princes and leaders of various states to follow. Confucius said,

In the Book of Ode, ‘Ah! The former kings are not forgotten’ Future princes deem worthy what they deemed worthy, and love what they loved. The common people delighted in what they delighted them, and are benefited by their beneficial arrangements. It is on this account that the former kings, after they have quitted the world, are not forgotten."

Important themes that we should remember from Confucius is his emphasis on ethics, on education, on harmony and treating people with respect and taking care of the poor and less fortunate. 

Just something to think about on a cloudy Saturday.


____________________________
I don't particularly recommend this film as a film.  But as an easy (and visually beautiful) overview of the life of Confucius it will do.   It tends to give us a series of vignettes of his life,  with very little character development.   The two actors in these screenshots are (from Wikipedia):

• Chow Yun-fat as Confucius or Kong Qui, also known by the honorary title Zhong Ni.
• Zhou Xun as Nanzi, the royal consort of Wei.

Zhou Xun was in Dai Sijie's Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress (2002) a film very much worth seeing.  She was also in Cloud Atlas.  

Thoughts On Pebble Mine After 6 Classes

I've been to six of the planned eight OLÉ classes on Pebble Mine. Here's my sense of this mega project to extract copper, gold, molybdenum, and other metals in a remote area adjacent to the world's largest salmon fishery.


1.  Obsession:   Anyone who wants to undertake a project of this scope in the United States has to be an obsessive gambler. The amount of time and effort it takes to get all the permits, to get to the site, to put in infrastructure, to put in all the safety procedures, to woo the local communities, and to so raw mining and then to clean up everything is enormous.   I suspect that for some people this is a challenge, like climbing the peaks of the world's highest mountains.  I imagine for all who undertake such projects, the promise of great riches is a key factor.  And apparently, getting a project along a certain part of the way, means the project can then be sold to someone else.  And I'm not exactly sure who's money is at risk and what sort of tax benefits some may get out of losses in a project like this.
For example here are some of the Pebble Mine presentation slides that show a sense of the enormous scope of the project without getting into minutiae:

They have to process such enormous amounts of ore because the amount of valuable minerals is a tiny fraction.

This is just the site for the current 20 year planned mine.  There's a much richer ore deposit to the east of this, but it's buried under bedrock and harder to get at.  No one seems to believe that this project is going to end after 20 years.  That's just the point where they will begin this process over again to then go after the rest of the ore.

2. Complexity.  There is no one person who has the knowledge and experience to be able to assimilate all the data in order to make a yes or no decision on a project like this.  There's way too much technical data from too many different areas.  We've been told about tests of chemical reactions, groundwater studies, surface water studies, acidity, toxicity, bulk tailings and pyritic tailings,  porphyry intrusions, how copper affects salmon's ability to smell, the many federal and state regulations, and  growing demand for copper in green economy,

Here's an overview of the Baseline Study - an attempt to document the existing conditions.  Who is really going to read 30,000 pages?

3.  Many Decisions.   There isn't just one decision.  There are many permits and approvals to get - some of which can stop the project.

On the left are the US Army Corps of Engineers authorities.  On the right are other federal laws. (clicking on any of the images will enlarge and focus them)

And there are approvals and permits needed from Alaska.

And here are all the groups involved in the Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact.

Although we got charts showing the decision making process, no one ever said who exactly makes the final decision.  Is it just one person?  Or several people?  We still have two more sessions so I can ask next week.  (I'll miss the last session, unfortunately.)

4. Risk.   In fact, this is NOT a technical decision. Ultimately it's a decision about risk.  How much risk is there and is that risk worth the possible consequences?  It's about the level of comfort with risk the decision maker has.  There isn't just one risk, but many.  At the extreme is the potentially catastrophic consequence of destroying the salmon in Bristol Bay.  McNeil River bears are also nearby.  Then there are the possibilities of lesser impacts on the salmon and other parts of the environment around the mine site.  On the other side are the benefits, which the Pebble folks identified as employment for local people and the importance of copper in the new green environment.  And, of course, the hundreds of millions of potential profit.

Here are some slides from the presentation of Bristol Bay Native Corporation which opposes the mine:

And this slide from the Pebble Mine folks:

5.  Ultimately It's A Values Based Decision.  Aside from the decision maker(s) comfort with and exposure to risk in this situation, this all boils down to two opposing world views:

1. The United States is based on individual freedom and capitalism which allow, even encourage, individuals and corporations to go out and exploit the world's God given natural resources to become rich and make the general economy better
2. Human beings are part of nature, not APART from nature.  Humans have been exploiting the planet and now it has reached the point that human caused climate change will make life and survival for humans and most other species of life much harder.

6.  The Decision.   The decision on Pebble will probably be determined not so much by all the technical details that are being presented, but by where on the spectrum between World Views #1 and #2  the decision maker(s) sit.


7.  Money.  As I review all this, I realize that one important aspect* of the Pebble Mine project has not been discussed in the class - how the project is being financed.  I made the assumption in #1 above that this was a gamble.  But bits of conversation after class with presenters makes me question that.  At one point I made a comment about Northern Dynasty (the company that has been at the lead in this project) and someone said, they won't be the ones who actually carry all this out.  They will be sold out.  So I have questions about how a deal like this is put together.    Who actually has money at risk?  Who is investing in this?  What are their motives?  How much of the expenses of doing all the preparation costs are only paper losses?

These all boil down to who is actually risking how much money and what do they stand to gain?  To what extent do tax payers end up underwriting this because of tax deductions for business expenses or tax offsets for losses?

*Of course there are other important aspects that haven't been discussed that I haven't yet thought of, I'm sure.

To Impeach Now Or Not - Stepping Back To Understand The Debate A Little Differently

I've written on the topic before, but this time I want to consider the motivation of people (Democrats) who differ because some want to start impeachment right now and others say that its futile if the Senate votes it down.  I'm just thinking out loud here.  So bear with me as I wander into a little philosophy.

Philosophers talk about deontology and utilitarianism.  From Gabriela Guzman:

Deontological ethics is an ethics system that judges whether an action is right or wrong based on a moral code. Consequences of those actions are not taken into consideration. This ethics system is intended to be precise and by the book. Doing the right thing means to follow proper rules of behavior and, by doing so, promoting fairness and equality. . . (emphasis added)

In the other hand, utilitarian ethics state that a course of action should be taken by considering the most positive outcome. This ethics system is more accurate when it comes to addressing complicated situations, which solutions are not as trivial.

[This is a very brief pair of definitions.  For more nuance, check out the link above, or find other sites that discuss it.]

 Roughly, using this way of seeing the debate, one could argue that those calling for impeachment now - because they see the president as having committed high crimes, misdemeanors, and treason - is the right thing to do.  It doesn't matter whether the Senate votes for impeachment.  Doing the right thing is what is important.  The law/constitution was broken, so action must be taken.  At the extreme case would be the swimming referee in Anchorage who disqualified a female swimmer because the rules required the butt cheeks to be covered.

And those calling for a careful calculation of how this is going to play out in the Senate before impeaching, could be seen as utilitarians.  What's the point, they'd say, of the House voting to impeach, if the Senate does[n't] vote to convict?

But, of course, life doesn't settle into neatly articulated categories.  One could argue that demanding impeachment hearings start now, is the best strategy  to get rid of the president - either via impeachment of the 2020 election. Impeachment hearings give the House the power to investigate the president's actions, to get documents, tapes, and to compel witnesses to testify.  That process itself, they would argue, could lead to revelations that would swing enough Republican Senators to obtain a successful conviction in the Senate.  And, even if that doesn't happen, it could reveal enough to help Democrats take the presidency in 2020.  Which would put those folks into the utilitarian camp.

Rep. Pelosi, who clearly represents the chief utilitarian in the original scenario, would argue that getting rid of Trump and restoring the US to a nation of law, is the ultimate goal.  If we go the impeachment route, we need to win, not make a show of ideologically pure failure.

As I think about this, I'd say Rep. Pelosi fits fairly neatly into the utilitarian box.  But I suspect the impeach now faction is made up of folks who are clearly deontologists and also utilitarians, who see impeaching now as the path to the best overall outcome.  And some may feel that impeaching now is both the right thing to do and the most likely path to accomplish their goals.

These splits among people who ostensibly hold the same political beliefs (or religious beliefs) is not uncommon.  Humans probably line up somewhere on a continuum from Deontology to Utilitarianism.  Those on the ends of the scales aren't likely to budge.

"Trump is a klutz, a bully and a liar. But he's no white supremacist"

That's the headline on Paul Jenkins' column in the ADN today.   Headlines are written by editors, but he does in fact say that in his column, though not in one sentence that succinctly.

But after calling the president a liar, he excoriates Democrats for 'stretching the truth' about saying Trump is a white supremacist by parsing the president's words and the context of this post Charlottesville comments about there being good people on both sides.

I don't have all that in front of me, but even if he is right about what Trump exactly said and meant, there are still some problems:

1.  All the other actions and words of the president that support the idea that he's a white supremacist.

2.  His praise (that he's not a white supremacist) comes after acknowledging he's a 'klutz, bully, and liar."  And he also acknowledges

"He says things that unnecessarily tarnish the presidency and embarrass this country.  He runs with his filters turned off and he often is insulting, combative, denigrating to women, Muslims, and Hispanics."

The only saving grace, he tells us, is that Trump was better than the other candidate.  If he really means that, then impeachment would allow a replacement that wouldn't be Hillary Clinton.

I feel a little like Alice in Wonderland reading this.  He even quotes Goebbels

"If you tell a lie beg enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"

But that's about the Democrats' "big lie" about calling Trump a white supremacist.  Not about all the repeated big lies he acknowledges that come from his president.

What is the point of this column?  Some possibilities:

1. It's Sunday and he owes one to the ADN and he has nothing to say.
2. It's a secret signal to say that the Republicans are morally bankrupt, without actually saying it.
3. It's fodder for the MAGA crowd, but if that's the case, why not embrace white supremacy instead of implying it's not a good thing?
4. It's there to piss off liberals, just because the ADN gives him a weekly column.  

Which raises the question:  Why doesn't the ADN have a policy that excludes personal attacks and requires regular columnists to stick to actual, rational discussions of policy?

If anyone needs to see the whole thing, it's here.

AK Press Club 2: Lakshmi Singh Gives Keynote

Lakshmi Singh before her talk

Lakshmi Singh was the keynote speaker Saturday afternoon at the Alaska Press Club annual conference.  As a very well known and recognized voice on NPR and I was looking forward to the talk.

First I'll highlight some of what she said.

Below that are my rough notes of the talk.  Treat them with caution.  Videos of all these session are supposed to be available at the AK Press Club site.  But they aren't up now.   If I find out more I'll put it up.

Basically Singh talked about restoring trust of media among the public.  She talked about NPR's rules of verification.
1.  The two source rule - get the story from at least independent, reliable sources, get a third if possible or unsure.  Make sure they all aren't relying on the same original source.
2.  Take no detail for granted - always check
3.  Go to the original source of the news - say a family member or spokesperson for a death
(There was one more I didn't get down fast enough)

She mentioned that a Bartlett High School student had emailed her a couple of weeks ago in an attempt to get extra credit for class.  She didn't know Singh would be in Anchorage shortly, and she said she visited the class Friday.

She also talked about the ethical question of informing sources of risks.  Say, doing a story on drug addiction, should they alert an interviewee that the story would be online and 20 years down the road, a prospective employer might find it.  She said some didn't think that was their responsibility, but she felt it was, saying, "Would it make it harder to get the interview?  Yes.  But our job isn't  to do it the easy way."

There was a question about the amount of analysis on NPR and the questioner felt that it added to the sense of media bias, because it's basically opinion and prediction.  She said she could only talk for the news programs and what they do, but the questioner said that the listener who listens to many NPR programs a day, hears lots of 'experts' analyzing rather than reporting facts.  Earlier Singh had related how she'd suggested to the Bartlett students, who had trouble trusting any news,

 If you can't trust [the network], then start with one reporter who always seems to be on his or her game.  Maybe that's where we can start to build trust.

Her response to the question didn't seem to satisfy the questioner, nor me, nor another person I talked to afterward.  It's been my perception that NPR has leaned over backwards to appear fair.  And this attempt at neutrality, especially when dealing with a president who ignores the truth and the constitution for self-aggrandizement.  Acting 'fair' in response means you've already lost ground, just by treating the outrageous as something debatable.  And, of course, one can ask, "What's the alternative?  To also be uncivil? No, but being more relenting (and this does happen sometimes on NPR) in questions is probably one option.  But this is a bigger issue than what the questioner was proposing.

In response to another question about how she chooses items to air, Singh gave a set of priorities:

• Which affects most people?  
• Which will change fastest in next hour?  (Not sure where this was going.)
• Which grabbing national attention, even if not personal impact, but historically important?  Notre Dame fire.  Why did you lead with that:
• Immediacy and impact. 
• She said she was also focused on health, particularly women's health, stories that have been  underrepresented over the years.  Underrepresented voices and get those stories told.

Below are my rough notes of the talk:


 To Serve the Governed - LAKSHMI SINGH

Talk about personal attacks we get, something we all deal with.  Was originally titled to serve the governed.

Press was protected in the Constitution to serve the public, and only a free press can expose the government.  Supreme court ruling, Nixon attempt to suppress details of the Vietnam war.   Personal privacy vs. protection of the nation.

Begins with separating fact from fiction - requires stepping out of info silos.  Basics:
1.  two source rule
2.  take no detail for granted
3.  go to original source   ??? one more
4.  they also rely a lot of local NPR stations who have better local contacts to verify stories - but this too depends on NPR's experience with the local sources.
5.  clarify for the listener where and how they got the information rather than just report it as a fact (the next day I heard that in a report on the Poway Synagogue shooting - the reporter said they got the info from a synagogue member and friend of the woman killed.)



This is all being tested.  Channel surfing, headlines,  but now my day begins with sorting through Trump's tweeting.  So many decisions, changing policies, hires, dismissals - not confirmed yet but get an idea of where going - revealed on Twitter.

Next step for me - talking with colleagues  Which P's remarks news value for our audience.
Need to fact check president.
Recall hosting ??   - asked if considering child separation.  Pres. said it was Obama who had actually separated kids.  He, Trump, stopped.   Factcheck.org  - trying to get to the audio.  Immigration experts, during GWB and Barrack  - family separations not on same scale as Trump.  We know 2700 families affected, true figure unknown.
True he signed an order that ended family separations, but had gotten lots of pushback.  Required far more detailed explanation from journalists.
April 9 or 10, NPR covered immigrations.  He met with reporters - CNN, Fox, MSNBC in our office - see where reporters are heading, if we don't have anyone there, I have to look at where to focus in next 30 min if my news cast is coming.   Trump, talking to Rep Donors in Texas.  I was at odds with our news people on how to cover remarks about violent criminals....  He'd make charactiastions about undocumented immigrants.  This is a false characterization - fear mongering - thinking.  I'll cover this.  Fears people had shared with Trump which he repeated.  Colleague felt rhetoric so irresponsible, it would be irresponsible for NPR to cover it.  That news conference specifically.  I felt for that very reason we had to fact-check the president.  Figuring will take, some we won't.  In that conference were so out-there, that I felt we had to at least report on it and correct.  If he said this, this is actually the fact.  It took about 20 seconds coming out of him.

Same as with his comment that Obama had family separations and he stopped it.  People agreed but only aired it once  All the editorial pitfalls we have to miss minute by minute, it will get harder and harder as technology advances.  How better guide audience to distinguish fact from fiction?  What should I do to get your confidence?

Teenagers keep it real.  A few weeks ago a student at Bartlett high emailed me.  Needed to get extra credit.  She had no idea I would be in Anchorage.  I showed up in class yesterday morning - 7:30am.  I'm happy to report.  She got a solid A.

Had good discussion about whether they had trouble sorting fact from fiction.  Generation with lots of options for getting their news.  Implication of lack of trust on their personal lives.  I wanted to do more listening - genuine reasonses

Racially mixed group, socially there.  Had access to NPR teacher puts on 3x a week.  Help put what they were learning in perspective.
Some influenced by families, some not.
Overall, it was hard [for them] to figure out if things presented as fact, really are.
Say, climate change.  Crisis in trust in media overall.
Left them with - NPR exhaustive work on getting right, not perfect, and if wrong, we immediately own it and correct it.  If you can't trust that, then start with one reporter who always seems to be on his or her game.  Maybe that's where we can start to build trust.
Seemed to resonate with students who talked to me after class.

Another way journalists tested - two source rule.    How many of you 70% of time rely on two sources - say wires.  Have you adjusted that to include other sources before you include a story.
We do heavy attribution.  7:30 something has happened.  Start vetting.  Call other stations and how other news is reporting it.  And then, if we still haven't independently verified - we might say "multiple news stories are reporting" or "according to LA Times" .  Feels clunky - get story out there so audience knows you aren't oblivious, but you haven't personally verified.

Two sources ok for some stories ok
Death on prominent figure, but we don't unless verified from family member or publicist.  We can have three sources, but could get their info from the same source.
Trying to compete with other news outlets - we learned that doesn't really matter.  If we want to keep our audience we have to keep integrity.

Rely on local journalists on the ground with own sources - we recognize it varies from local journalists - weight that and if have good handle on story, reliability - they may be asked specifics about their sources.  Not unusual to get a report from a local station - we ask who the sources are - PD, which person?  Is that the spokesperson for the PD?

Covington video - at NPR realized better to wait.  We did a writeup about the process of having to wait.  Disagreements over that resulted in lawsuits.

Say, interviewing about opiod epidemic and they share their story about addiction.  20 years later, it could be discovered by future employer.  Are we required to let interviewee know.  Some yes, others no.  Make it harder to get interview?  Yes.  But our job isn't to do it easy way.

Big fan of 'reportables'.  Feeding info to editors, more vetting, ready for air.  Emailed throughout the network.  When I see 'reportable" on my email - I might be in middle of broadcast - I'll know I can just read it.  There have been errors, but more often than not, worked really well.  Can do fast turnaround on breaking stories.  Often our own reporters verifying with our own sources.

Our listeners have made NPR primary sources - still offers contextual news on multiple platforms.  Our audience growing, younger listeners, so we're doing something right.

Like to turn this over to you for questions.  1:40

Q:  ???
A;  Clear that this is a developing story and will change.  Depending on story.  When I need to know about wild fires, know I can rely on AP more than Reuters.  Going to websites, getting info directly.  Updated more frequently and faster than wire services can do.  They've decided to focus on specific pieces, regions.  NPR relying heavily on member stations.  Hard to know there's a story and we can't call a member station.    You know your local sources.

Q:   ????
A:  2 or 3 different sources - I think this is what happened.  I wasn't in newsroom.  Systematic breakdown.  Multiple people, NPR reporter, correspondent and local NPR from another source - turned out all getting from the same place.  Same law enforcement official?  not sure.  So producer at the time, no longer there . . . went with that, thinking we had multiple sources saying the same thing.  Began immediate discussion at highest level.  How could we have allowed this to happen.  Took responsibility as a network.  We won't talk about the death of anyone until we can independently verify.
Q:  What was the Q?  A:  [I didn't catch this fully, but it was about a report that someone who died, but hadn't really. I've looked up such stories at NPR and they did report Rep. Gabby Gifford had died.]  Daily News called us to stop broadcasting, she's not dead.
A:  Don't know details.
Q:  Everyone working in newsroom knows agony of being right.  Comment on perception of media bias based on - opinion itself feeds the perception of partisanship.  Too much speculation of facts.
A:  We have journalists report what we know and don't know.  Then analysts who explain what they think might happen.  We're careful to qualify what we say - expect, not sure, etc.  Using our experience to tell you what you should look out for.  But at the end of that path, it could be the exact opposite.

More on analysis vs news, how we pick the analysts.
Q:  suggesting that contributes to sense of not reporting facts?
A:  Particular example.  Last year fatigue of Trump coverage syndrome - here's the liberal voice, here's the conservative voice, let's  fight it out.
A:  I have a different perspective - we're always talking about balance.  As newscaster, there's no room for speculation.  What you're talking about is - it's the whole flavor of that media outlet.  NPR itself helps feed this perception of bias.
A:  I might agree on certain stories, or timing of an interview,  I hear you.  Overall, we've gone to great lengths.  Some think we're part of the liberal media.  Other times think we're not.  Or are we always on the fence.

A: Which affects most people?  Which will change fastest in next hour?  Which grabbing national attention, even if not personal impact, but historically important?  Notre Dame fire.  Why did you lead with that.  Immediacy and impact.  I'm also focusing on health, particularly women's health, stories that underrepresented over the years.  Underrepsented voices and get those stories told.

Q"  ??[This was a question about why they covered a story in the Iditarod]
A:  Iditarod story  followed by teachers strike.  I wanted to do story about dogs.  could switch from people are striking, dogs are striking too.

Once Again, Lisa Murkowski Shows Fellow Republicans What Principled Courage Looks Like - This Time On Climate Change

No one with an open mind who learns the basics of climate change, can have any doubt it's real, it's human caused, and it's going to mess with our planet big time.  The sooner we take serious action to slow it down, the fewer the climate caused disruptions in the future.  Action to slow down climate change will have more long-term impact on humanity than any other issue.

You have to have a reason to oppose action to slow climate change - a big financial interest in burning carbons, or pressure from important friends who have such an interest.  Friends who have banned the words 'climate change' from Republican lips, and won't be your friend if they somehow slip out of them.  Some of these people are so committed to their party that they stay willfully ignorant.  Others know there is a conflict between their party position and reality and it probably eats them inside when they think about their inaction.  (So the more they hear about this from their constituents, the sooner they will take action.  So contact your Republican Senators.)

And now we have two US Senators from CO2 producing states - a Democrat, Joe Manchin, from the coal country of West Virginia and the other from my oil rich home state of Alaska, Republican Lisa - writing an opinion piece in the Washington Post - Lisa Murkowski and Joe Manchin: It’s time to act on climate change — responsibly.  A short excerpt:

The two of us have more in common than might meet the eye. We come from different parties, but we are both avid outdoorsmen and represent states that take great pride in the resources we provide to the nation and to friends and allies around the world. Alaska and West Virginia know that resource development and environmental stewardship must move in tandem, which is why we are committed to putting forward bipartisan solutions to help address climate change.
There is no question that climate change is real or that human activities are driving much of it. We are seeing the impacts in our home states. Scientists tell us that the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. Rising temperatures and diminishing sea ice on Alaska’s shores are affecting our fisheries and forcing some remote communities to seek partial or total relocation. In summer 2016, West Virginia experienced unprecedented flooding that killed 23 residents and inflicted tremendous damage across the state.

This is big.  In the cases of both Senators, CO2 production is important, and politicians cross the producers at their own risk.  Manchin just won reelection, so he has six years for his constituents to forget this, or for them to come to appreciate his leadership on the issue in their state.  Murkowski has four more years to her next election.

And Murkowski and Manchin are the Chair and Ranking Member* of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee respectively.

The fact that this is big highlights a lot of what's wrong about politics in the US - big anonymous money supporting or attacking politicians because of their stance on a particular issue.  [Note:  Alaska Common Ground and others are hosting a talk by Jeff Clements, author of Corporations Are Not People, March 21 at 49th Street Brewing at 6pm with a live feed.]

If you think about political parties as religious denominations, it's easier to understand the difficulty for someone like Lisa Murkowski.  She's grown up Republican.  Much of her family and many of her close friends are Republicans.  And it's a tightly controlled church - particularly for elected Republican officials.  They want you to toe the party line.  Every step over that line is seen as a betrayal of your religion and all your family and friends who believe.  And during this administration, there's an added pressure - a vindictive president who punishes people who disagree with him.

On the other hand, Lisa Murkowski, while seen by Democrats as making the right decisions on some key policies, is, after all, a Republican who takes the wrong stand from their perspective, on a lot of issues - like drilling in ANWR.  She and Manchin can argue they are the people in the middle who better reflect what Americans want.  Except that the middle has moved so far to the right on many issues that the middle is far to the right of someone like Richard Nixon.  (And conservatives will, correctly, look at some social issues - like LGBTQ rights - as examples of leftward movement.)

But Murkowski was abandoned by the Republican party in 2010 when Joe Miller beat her in the primary.  She ran as a write-in candidate and, with the help of Alaska Native organizations and many Democrats, was reelected in the regular election.  After ditching her, the Republicans took her back in the fold, though only very reluctantly for many.

So it's important for Alaskans to let her know we've got her back.  (Do we?  We'll see what kind of primary opposition Murkowski gets and whom the Democrats will nominate, I guess.)  At the very least, people should send her a note, an email, or call her office  ((907) 271-3735) and thank her for taking this stand on climate change.  And ask two friends to do the same.

And West Virginians you can email Joe Manchin and thank him.

And the rest of you can let them know you appreciate their taking a principled stand on climate change.  And if you have another Republican Senator, let them know they should take the Climate Change Plunge as well.



*Ranking Member is the most senior member of the committee of the minority party.

MLK Day Spent With Kids Writing Letters To Politicians And Marching To Post Office To Mail Them

I'm near Seattle visiting family and so I want along with my daughter and granddaughter to the  library for an event to honor Martin Luther King and to fulfill his legacy.  It was called the Children's March for Peace and Justice.  From the announcement:

"Honor the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Write letters to the leaders of your choice, asking them to work for peace or thanking them for acts of kindness. Then march to the post office to mail our letters. Bring posters or banners from home. All Ages"

We ended up outside because the main room was so full.  Kids were making signs and writing letters in keeping with the day.  There were cards and envelopes for those who were going to do more drawing than writing, and stationery as well.


Kids were asked what topics they might want to write about and the younger ones did seem to need a little more help.  Here's one asking President Trump to be more kind.

Kids also made signs for the march.  

Eventually, everyone got their signs and letters together and we marched about a mile to the post office.  Here's the tail end of the march.

And, some more, and there were just as many beyond - down the hill.

And finally to the post office - which was closed for the MLK holiday - where people put their letters into the mail box.


I'd note that I try hard not to show faces of kids without parental permission.  So I've smudged all the identifiable faces I saw, and smudged the letter where it had a name on it.



I'd note that as I sat there and watched parents coach little kids about whom to write to and the topics to write about, I thought about conservative groups coaching their kids on anti-abortion messages.  Is this different?  I think it is in some ways and isn't in others.  In both cases, kids are being taught to participate in their democracy - to voice their opinions.  And in both cases, the parents' opinions strongly influence what the kids write.  But what I saw today was more about American values in general - freedom, democracy, tolerance, and peace*.  There was also some environmental ideas including global warming.  There wasn't anything here that advocated for limiting other people's ability to do anything - like control their bodies, like seek freedom and opportunity.  I didn't see any signs that demeaned anyone, instead it was about pushing basic democratic values.

*Given how many years the US has been involved in wars in the last 100 years, I'm not sure that peace is really an American value any more, or if it ever was.

Another Prediction About 2019 Science Events - This Time From Science Magazine

The other day I posted an LA Times list of science events or projects that would likely be in the news in 2019.  Science Magazine has also put out such a list.  They didn't explain the order, so I took the liberty of grouping events under the same title (ie Climate Science) together.  I also took as little as I could to post here, just what I thought was enough for readers to understand what they were talking about.  Go to the original form more details.   Let's see where the two lists - LA Times and Science Magazine -  overlap.


CLIMATE SCIENCE   (LA Times talked about the many projects on Antarctica)
All eyes on polar ice
If you want to understand Earth's warming future, look to the poles. This year, scientists in two international projects will heed that call. In September, researchers will position a German icebreaker, the RV Polarstern, to freeze in Arctic sea ice for a year's stay. The ship will serve as the central hub for the €120 million Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate, hosting researchers from 17 countries.

CLIMATE SCIENCE
Solar dimming gets a test
A geoengineering technique to curb global warming by temporarily dimming the sun's rays could get its first, modest field experiment this year. In solar geoengineering, vast amounts of reflective aerosol particles would be sprayed into the high atmosphere, mimicking the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions.

SCIENCE POLICY 
A science whisperer for Trump
For 2 years, President Donald Trump has been making decisions involving science and innovation without input from a White House science adviser. Meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier, whom Trump nominated in late July 2018 to fill that void, was awaiting final Senate approval at press time. The question is what his arrival will mean for the administration's handling of an array of technical challenges, from regulation of human embryo engineering and self-driving cars to combatting cyberterrorism and fostering a more tech-savvy workforce.

SCIENCE POLICY
Divided we stand?
You'll need a Ouija board to predict how U.S. science will fare this year under a divided government, with Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives while Republicans retain the Senate with President Donald Trump in the White House. There are the known flashpoints—Democrats challenging the Trump administration on its environment and energy policies, for example.


PARTICLE PHYSICS
Seeking new physics in the muon
By studying the magnetism of a particle called the muon, physicists hope to find results this year that could point to new particles or forces, something they have craved for decades. Scientists at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Illinois, are examining whether the muon—a heavier and shorter-lived cousin of the electron—is more magnetic than theory predicts.


BIOPHYSICS
A fine-grained look inside cells
In cell biology, higher resolution means more gets revealed. Now, scientists are ready to use new combinations of tools and techniques to provide close-up looks at components inside cells in unprecedented detail, and in 3D. Already, researchers can analyze DNA, proteins, RNA, and epigenetic marks in single cells. This year, multidisciplinary teams plan to combine those methods with advances in cryoelectron tomography, labeling techniques to trace molecules, and other types of microscopy to see subcellular structures and processes.


BIOTECHNOLOGY
New GM mosquitoes take off
The first release of genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes in Africa is set to happen in Burkina Faso this year, an initial step in a planned "gene drive" strategy against malaria. It will be the first release of GM mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles, which transmits the parasite responsible for the disease. The gene drive approach, under development at the nonprofit consortium Target Malaria, would spread mutations through the wild population that knock out key fertility genes or reduce the proportion of female insects, which transmit disease.


CONSERVATION
Nations size up biodiversity
Three years in the making, a $2.4 million assessment of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems will be published in May. By evaluating trends over 50 years in indicators such as species extinctions and extent of marine protected areas, it will chart progress toward international goals on biodiversity conservation—and, in many places, how far short the world is falling.



SPACE SCIENCE  (LA Times talks about New Horizon)
The next planetary mission
In July, NASA will chart its next major step in planetary science when it selects the next billion-dollar mission under its New Frontiers program. The agency will choose between two finalists. Dragonfly would send a semiautonomous quad-copter to fly across the surface of Titan, the saturnian moon sculpted by rivers of liquid methane. The copter would search for clues of chemical reactions that could lead to life. The Comet Astrobiology Exploration Sample Return mission would return gases and ice from the nucleus of the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

RESEARCH ETHICS
A push to return museum holdings
Researchers are beginning new efforts to return bones and cultural artifacts collected for study and as museum specimens to the peoples from whom they were obtained, often without consent. Expect renewed debate on this issue, as after centuries of exploitative collecting, some researchers use new methods to collaborate with those communities, and also expand efforts to return objects of art.

#METOO  (I'm grouping this with other ethics related ones)
New rights for alleged harassers
This year, the U.S. Department of Education may finalize controversial proposed rules that would reduce universities' liability for policing sexual harassment and sexual assault and give more rights to the accused. The regulations, proposed in November 2018, would change how institutions investigate such allegations under the landmark 1972 law known as Title IX. They wouldn't be responsible for investigating most off-campus incidents of harassment or assault, and the standard of evidence for confirming allegations of on-campus misconduct could rise.

BIOETHICS
China eyes bioethics overhaul  (LA Times does cover this one)
China is likely to tighten its rules for genetic engineering of humans, including the creation of heritable traits, in the wake of an uproar over such work in 2018. A Chinese scientist named He Jiankui announced in November 2018 that he modified a gene in embryos that led to twin baby girls.

LIVESTOCK AGRICULTURE
Disease crisis looms for swine
Pig farmers—and perhaps some bacon lovers—will anxiously scan the headlines this year for news of African swine fever (ASF). Harmless to humans, the viral disease is highly infectious and lethal among pigs, causing serious economic damage through culls and trade bans.

Seems this one is more geared to scientists and the LA Times list toward a lay audience, which makes perfect sense.

Walker's Statement About Why He's Ending His Campaign For Governor

I spent all day in US District Courtroom #2 - Henry v. MOA.  I got out at 2pm, with my head spinning and my stomach protesting the lack of a lunch break.  Stopped at the Court Clerk's office to see what I could find about the case on their computer.  I ended up taking images of the Summary, Main Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations from the Brown Study that was released the other day to the public.  Then I biked home along Chester Creek.  There, my wife asked if I'd heard the news.  I hadn't.

So here's the Governor's announcement and explanation.  I could have lived reasonably comfortably with Bill Walker getting another four years.  I voted for him last time and he's an honorable man, intelligent, and appears always to have the best for Alaska in mind.  I don't agree with all his positions, but that's true about most elected officials.  As of today, it's (sort of) a two way race between Mark Begich and Mike Dunleavy.  Walker's name will still be on the ballot and I'm sure some people will vote for him (please don't unless you were planning to vote for Dunleavy.)  And the Division of Elections has said 1000 absentee votes are already in, and surely some of those folks voted for Walker.

I'll try to get something up about the trial later tonight or tomorrow.  Meanwhile, here's the email the Governor sent out.

Dear Alaskans,
I ran for re-election because I still believe that, more than anything else, Alaska deserves integrity, honesty, and courage.
Alaska First is, and cannot only be, a campaign slogan. When I said I ran for governor to do the job, not make the decisions to keep the job, I meant exactly what I said.  Every decision I have made as your governor, I have made on the basis of what I believe is best for Alaska.
With that said, effective today, I am suspending my campaign for re-election as Governor. With more time, I am confident that Val and I could deliver a message and a campaign that could earn a victory in this election.
But there are only 18 days remaining before election day. Absentee ballots have already been mailed, and Alaskans are already voting. In the time remaining, I believe we cannot win a three-way race.
This week I have talked to many Alaskans to determine whether I or Mark Begich had a better chance of running a competitive race against Mike Dunleavy. The determination was made that, at this point, Begich has the better odds.
Alaskans deserve a competitive race. Alaskans deserve a choice other than Mike Dunleavy, whose record and campaign rhetoric indicate he will:

• eliminate Medicaid Expansion that has provided healthcare access to 44,000 Alaskans, created jobs and brought $1 billion federal dollars into the Alaskan economy while decreasing State healthcare expenditures by $16 million, kept hospitals from closing, and saved lives;
• defund the Alaska LNG Gasline project that has made historic progress, will create 12,000 high paying construction jobs, 88,000 direct and indirect jobs and deliver low cost energy to our homes and businesses;
• undo the bipartisan approved sustainable fiscal plan that has resulted in fiscal stability, significantly reduced the deficit, improved our credit rating and preserved the PFD program into perpetuity;
• cause our most vulnerable to suffer the brunt of the additional $1 billion in budget cuts he vows to make to education, rural Alaska and those receiving healthcare.

Moreover, my administration has worked tirelessly to improve the relationship between Tribes and State and restore respect for Alaska's First Peoples in state government. Yesterday, I apologized on behalf of the State of Alaska for the wrongs committed against the Alaska Native people throughout our history, because I believed that was best for Alaska. My expectation is that this work critical to the healing of historical trauma and unifying all Alaskans will be undone in a Dunleavy administration.
On balance, it is my belief that despite my many differences with Mark Begich, his stance on the important issues I have listed above more closely align with my priorities for Alaska.
This is not the first difficult decision I have made this week, but it is one I know I must make. There simply are no words to express my deepest gratitude to the incomparable, dedicated team of outstanding Alaskans who have served in my administration and to the thousands of supporters, donors, volunteers and campaign staff who have been passionately committed to my re-election. And above all, I want to say thank you to my family and to Donna, my first lady for life.
As I said earlier this week, ultimately, it's not how long my team and I serve, it's how well we served the people and the state we love while the opportunity was ours. We have served with integrity, courage, devotion, and compassion, never asking ourselves whether a decision is politically correct but always asking if it is right for Alaska. I am proud of the work we have done in the most challenging fiscal crisis in state history and it is the honor of my life to have served as the governor of this great state.
Thank you, God bless you all, and may God continue to bless Alaska.
Bill Walker

In this age of cynicism about politics, I thank Governor Walker for what he's done in the last four years and for taking this difficult step.