Be careful when you vote on Prop. 2

[NOTE:  This post was about PROP 2 2008.  I will do [have done] one on the 2010 PROP 2 before too long.]

[UPDATE 2012:  Here's the post on the 2012 Prop 2 to reestablish an Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program.]

I voted today because we're headed out of town on Sunday night. Before you go to vote, be sure you know how you want to vote on Prop. 2 - aerial hunting of wolves. I found the wording confusing.

This bill amends current law banning same-day airborne shooting to include grizzly bears. The bill permits the Board of Game to allow a predator program for wolves and grizzly bears if the Commissioner of Fish and Game finds an emergency, where wolves or grizzly bears in an area are causing a decline in prey. Only employees of the Department of Fish and Game could take part in the program. Only the minimum number of wolves or grizzly bears needed to stop the emergency could be removed.

I guess I thought that since the proponents of Prop 2 have been talking about how airborne hunting of wolves was such a terrible thing that they were proposing a law to ban that. I didn't realize we had a law that already bans it. That's what threw me off. We do. But there are exceptions for situations when the predators need to be culled so that the moose and caribou populations will be higher so that humans can hunt them, and, if there is disease. .

What this amendment appears to do is to more stringently define when the State could authorize airborne hunting and then when it does authorized it, only State Fish and Game employees can do the hunting. Also wolverines are also mentioned in the statutes.

You can go to the election page to get the wording of the ballots and to another page to read the voter pamphlet.

The ballot information, I'm afraid, is not particularly helpful. You'd think it would tell you the number of the current statute that will be replaced or amended by the proposition. And you'd be wrong. Or at least I couldn't find it. I had to go to the Alaska Statues and find it myself.

Here's the existing language that would be replaced - at least that's how I understand it.

Sec. 16.05.783. Same day airborne hunting.

(a) A person may not shoot or assist in shooting a free-ranging wolf or wolverine the same day that a person has been airborne. However, the Board of Game may authorize a predator control program as part of a game management plan that involves airborne or same day airborne shooting if the board has determined based on information provided by the department

(1) in regard to an identified big game prey population under AS 16.05.255(g) that objectives set by the board for the population have not been achieved and that predation is an important cause for the failure to achieve the objectives set by the board, and that a reduction of predation can reasonably be expected to aid in the achievement of the objectives; or

(2) that a disease or parasite of a predator population

(A) is threatening the normal biological condition of the predator population; or

(B) if left untreated, would spread to other populations.

(b) This section does not apply to

(1) a person who was airborne the same day if that person was airborne only on a regularly scheduled commercial flight; or

(2) an employee of the department who, as part of a game management program, is authorized to shoot or to assist in shooting wolf, wolverine, fox, or lynx on the same day that the employee has been airborne.

(c) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. In addition, the court may order the aircraft and equipment used in or in aid of a violation of this section to be forfeited to the state.

(d) When the Board of Game authorizes a predator control program that includes airborne or same day airborne shooting, the board shall have the prerogative to establish predator reduction objectives and limits, methods and means to be employed, who is authorized to participate in the program, and the conditions for participation of individuals in the program.

(e) The use of state employees or state owned or chartered equipment, including helicopters, in a predator control program is prohibited without the approval of the commissioner.

(f) In this section,

(1) "free-ranging" means that the animal is wild and not caught in a trap or snare; and

(2) "game management program" means a program authorized by the Board of Game or the commissioner to achieve identified game management objectives in a designated geographic area.

Here's the language of the initiative:

FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW
An Act Prohibiting the Shooting of Wolves & Grizzly Bears with the Use of Aircraft Be it enacted by the People of the State of Alaska that Section 1. A.S. 16.05.783 is amended to read: Section 16.05.783. (a) A person may not shoot or assist in shooting a free-ranging wolf, wolverine or grizzly bear the same day that the person has been airborne. However, the Board of Game may authorize a predator program involving the shooting of wolves or grizzly bears
Ballot Measure 2
Bill Amending Same Day Airborne Shooting from the air or on the same day that a person has been airborne if
(1) the Commissioner of Fish and Game makes written findings based on adequate data demonstrating that a biological emer- gency exists and that there is no feasible solution other than airborne control to eliminate the bioogical emergency;
(2) any shooting is conducted by Department of Fish and Game personnel only, and not by any permittee or agent;
(3) the program is limited to the specific geographical area where the biological emergency exists; and
(4) the program removes only the minimum number of wolves or grizzly bears necessary to eliminate the biological emergency.
(b) This section does not apply to a person who was airborne the same day if that person was airborne only on a regularly scheduled commercial flight.
(c) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. In addition, the court may order the aircraft
and equipment used in or in aid of a violation of this section to be forfeited to the State.
(d) In this section,
(1) “free-ranging” means that the animal is wild and not caught in a trap or snare; and
(2) “biological emergency” means a condition where a wolf or grizzly bear population in a specific geographic area is depleting a prey population to a point that if not corrected will cause an irreversible decline in the prey population such that it is not likely to recover without implementing wolf or grizzly bear control.

By the way, while I was in the Statues, I came across this law of elephant permits. Just in case you were thinking of bringing back an elephant from your next trip:

Sec. 16.40.060. Elephant permit.

The commissioner may issue a permit, subject to reasonable conditions established by the commissioner, to possess, import, or export an elephant. A permit may be issued only to a person who proves to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the person

(1) intends to exhibit the animal commercially;

(2) possesses facilities to maintain the animal under positive control and humane conditions; and

(3) maintains personal injury and property damage insurance in an amount established by the commissioner.

Bears, Moose, People Part 2- The Pieces

[All the wild bear pictures and the runner in the woods picture were taken by my friend Doug while he was visiting this summer.]


In the Bears, Moose, People Part 1, I discussed the narratives people have in their heads about urban wildlife. In Part 2 I want to discuss the pieces, basically those things that can change or be changed to decrease the likelihood of bad encounters between people and bears.

I see three basic factors:

1. People
2. Bears
3. Land
   

1. People

People can change their behaviors:

• Stop attracting bears into urban areas
• no bird feeders in the buffer zone - residential area on the edge of parkland
• bear proof garbage cans in the buffer zone (shared country)
  
• no raising animals - chickens, goats, rabbits - in the buffer zone
• Limited use of park areas where bears are present
• stop activity that is most likely to provoke confrontations with bears, such as
• activity that increases likelihood of sudden encounters - ie.
  
• moving quickly through forested areas such as biking, running
  
• quiet movement through forested areas
• going into areas of bear habitat - spawning salmon runs
  

2. Bears
We can't change the general behavior of bears.

However,

• we can understand bear behavior and then using that understanding, change our own behavior in ways that will decrease specific bear behaviors. This works for bear behaviors that are affected by human behaviors, like coming into residential neighborhoods because of garbage, dog food, and bird seed.
• protecting particular areas, if deemed necessary, with bear proof barriers. For the most part this is impractical because of the large amount of land in question. This is, however, the logic behind bear proof garbage cans. If there are specific areas where people congregate, such as the Campbell Science Center, where bears could become a problem, there could be raised decks, boardwalks, etc. that would better separate humans and bears.
  
• remove bears that become problems - relocation or, if necessary, killing problem bears.

3. Land
In abstract terms, we can identify three land areas:

• Bear country - this is the natural area of bears, people enter this area occasionally at their own risk
  
• Shared country (border zone) - this is area, such as parks on the edge of urban areas, where both people and bears go regularly
  
• People country - this is urban area, particularly residential, that is primarily the natural area of people, where bears only occasionally enter

The problem here is that different people would put the boundaries at different places on the map. For some, bear country would be at least 50 miles from any road, and shared country would be 25 or more miles from any road. People country would extend as far as anyone could reasonably hike or bike from a trailhead from a road. Others would consider shared country parks on the urban edge.



How people react to the options listed above will depend on the narratives they have about people, bears, and the relationship between people and bears. Let's look at this. (And as I write this, I realize I'm modifying a bit the narratives I outlined in Part 1, or even offering new narratives. Please indulge me on this.)

Narratives about Bears range from:

• Treadwell narratives - bears are really sweet and gentle and if you understand them we can all live in harmony.

to

• Bears are vicious animals and the wild bears should not be anywhere near people

I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between. Bears are not ruthless, vicious creatures, but the are big, powerful, have sharp teeth and claws and in some circumstances can be dangerous to human beings. Those basic dangerous situations have been identified by biologists as:

• protecting their young
• protecting their food
• when startled or otherwise provoked or threatened

Biologists also tell us that bears have different ursanalities ("personalities" doesn't seem quite the right word) and, like some people, some bears don't follow the general rules of how bears behave.

All the recent bear encounters appear to fit these categories. Bears coming into urban areas seem to be looking for food that people have left out, or in the form of moose or fish. These bears have not attacked people, and those who have not shown fear of humans, have been shot by state biologists or police.

Narratives about People

These are more difficult. But let me give it a shot:

• Freedom extremists - These people seem to still be in that childhood stage where they don't think about how their actions affect others. They want to do what they want to do and others be damned. If I want to go riding in the park, well, I should be able to do that without fear of bears. Therefore, get the bears out.
  
• Extreme anti-risk Parents - Anything that might cause the slightest risk to their children should be banned or removed. (What people consider to be a risk is subjective.)
  
• Dare-devils - They aren't so interested in getting rid of the bears, but want to be able to take whatever risks they want to take. "If I want to take that risk, what's it to you? I'm not asking you to do it." They may not realize that their behavior may jeopardize the bear by provoking an attack that will cause public reaction to remove or kill the bear. Or that their feeding a bear will cause that bear to approach other people for food.
  
• The ignorant - They just aren't aware, don't read the rules, act surprised and even indignant if something bad happens. "How was I supposed to know?"
• Basic Rule Followers - these people follow the rules, particularly the ones that make sense to them. They'll buy bear proof garbage cans and read and follow the bear-safety pamphlets.
• Coexistence activists - They moved to Anchorage because of the natural wilderness and are active in protecting the wilderness and animals and promoting safe interaction.
• Bears are our friends utopians - They embrace the coexistence ideal and gloss over the fact that bears can kill. "Why can't well all just live as one happy family?"
• Bear Tyrants - They insist that the loss of any animal life is a crime and that anyone hurt by a bear was at fault.

OK, I'm offering a few extreme examples here and I'm sure I've left out a lot of possible ways people think about this topic, but you get the idea. We don't agree. And we aren't consistent. There may be times when we fit one narrative and other times when we don't.

Whatever rules or guidelines or laws we have about what people should or should not do, there will be people who don't follow the rules. There are also people who will follow the rules, yet still find themselves in dicey situations. Life contains risk. Dogs cause more human deaths in Alaska than do bears. Finding exact stats on this is not easy, but so far this year I'm aware of two children killed by dogs (in Fort Yukon and in Anchorage). This 1981 report that says:

Between 1955 and 1980, 14 human deaths from dog attacks were documented in the State of Alaska. In addition, discussions with private physicians, private veterinarians, public health nurses, and sanitarians strongly suggest that at least twice this number of human deaths from dog bites occurred during this 25-year period of time. Of the 14 documented cases, all occurred in children less than 10 years of age.

This 2008 report says

Alaska Report at a Glance:

• Deaths (1991-2002): 9
• Median Age: 54 months
• Age Range: 9 to 64 months
• Circumstances: Three cases of free-roaming dogs, three of chained dogs, one victim wandered into dog lot, one attacked indoors by pet, one unknown

Wikipedia's list of bear deaths in the United States lists 7 human deaths from bears in Alaska in the 1991 - 2002 period. Most of these deaths were in what I have called bear country, though the two hikers at McHugh Creek, within the Municipality limits, were in what could be called shared country. Another death at a cabin near Glenallen might also be called shared country.

I'll try to get up Part III - Conclusions up before too long.

[If anyone can tell me how to fix the gaps around those picture, please do. I know that there is blank picture space blocking the wrap, but that's never happened before with pictures from iphoto.]

Stevens' Conflicting Statements Raise Doubts about his Mental Acuity

Yesterday, I suggested that Ted Stevens' best strategy for this election would have been to gracefully retire and protect Alaska's power in the Senate by sharing the knowledge he's accumulated in his long years of experience by mentoring his successor.

I also reported that he mumbled now and then. Today I got a link to this story from the Begich* campaign:

Sen. Ted Stevens is creating a legal defense fund to fight federal charges that he concealed more than $250,000 worth of gifts.

The Alaska Republican has asked the Senate Ethics Committee to approve the fund, which would be administered by a trustee who could solicit donations to help the senator with his court fees, according to Stevens’s spokesman.

Stevens said Tuesday during an Alaska Public Radio interview that the fund was already established, but his spokesman indicated Wednesday that Stevens misspoke and that he was "now seeking approval ... to establish such a fund.”

Senate rules require legal defense funds to be approved by the Select Committee on Ethics before any money can be raised. So far, no paperwork is on file with the Senate’s Office of Public Records. Once it is approved and the appropriate paperwork is submitted, Stevens can use the fund to pay his legal bills.

The old [younger] Ted Stevens wouldn't have made this mistake. It's not the fact that the the fund didn't exist yesterday that is important to me. It's the fact that Stevens didn't know it.


*I get emails from the Begich campaign and others now and then. It's raised questions for me about my role here. Clearly I lean toward what people call 'left.' but I don't see this as a partisan blog that simply pushes the party line. But I do try to put the pieces together and Stevens' error here is news. Calculating the value of his experience has to be balanced by calculating liability of his declining mental alertness over the next six years.

I'm also trying to figure out how to address questions about Begich's friend John Rubini. I haven't been on Ray Metcalfe's Anchorage tour of "Anchorage Political Corruption." But I have heard from other sources that Rubini looks very questionable. My basic response has been that Begich has known forever that he would eventually run for higher office, he has a good sense of the ethics rules, and that he's smart enough to avoid doing something stupid enough to jeopardize those ambitions. I was told, "All that may be true, but everyone has blindspots."

Of course, this all helps me understand why Republicans are sticking by Stevens. Those who like to spout black and white ethics simply haven't looked a little below the surface. If not Begich, who should I vote for? I don't think that Begich has done anything wrong. But supposing he has? Would that eliminate him from consideration? How bad would it have to be? This is a smart politician who in many ways has a vision that mirrors mine, though certainly not completely. Reps from the Begich campaign, people I respect, assure me that there is nothing there. Damn, life is so complicated.

So, I guess I'll have to check out Ray's tour and then bring my specific questions to Mark Begich. Why am I writing this if this is only rumor now? Well, the general story has been well covered by Ray Metcalfe. And I expect this is going nowhere. I'm also mindful that it isn't my job to find fault with candidates I support any more than the Republicans find fault with their candidates. Let the Republicans do the work. But I also want to have a blog that deals with the long-term truths of human beings more than the short term outcomes of specific political campaigns.

We are headed out of town next week, so this will be on hold for a bit.

Smashed Window

I came home from a couple of events at UAA this evening to find my van's rear window smashed. Since I don't drive it that often, I'm not 100% sure when I last saw it intact. I went by it at the end of my run today and should have seen it then. J said she went by it when she came home from her walk about 3:30pm. This evening I was on my bike. But would someone smash it in broad daylight? Maybe we just didn't notice it. That's a scary thought too.




UPDATE: 10:30pm - Our neighbors who were outside,as we were headed out to the Thai Kitchen. They all looked at the damage and we noticed that all the glass is on the outside. The car was locked, nothing inside was disturbed, the propane was turned off. It's all very curious. One neighbor had parked right behind the van about 4pm and hadn't noticed anything. But then they were all standing out there and didn't know about the window until I pointed it out. Any dectectives out there?

Ted Stevens' Trial Stays in DC - Now What?

NPR also just announced on the air that the Stevens trial won't move to Alaska.
[11am update: ABC News has a report, but not much detail. So does Alaskan Abroad.]
Based on no hard evidence whatsoever, here are some thoughts on what might happen with the Stevens trial.

The idea that the defense wanted a speedy trial so Senator Stevens could be acquitted before the November election makes sense. This has also allowed them to ask for the trial to be moved to Alaska - where they probably assume, quite reasonably, he might get a friendlier jury - and to drop some things. Now that option has been closed off.


The ADN has also said that they've requested the Prosecutors do a better labeling job of all the audio and video tapes they have to listen to.

I'm guessing, that given the piles of things they have to read and listen to, there is no way they can be ready by September 24. (I could be wrong. They could hire a whole slew of young, smart attorneys to listen to those tapes 24/7 - but they have to all be up-to-speed and clever enough to catch important tidbits on the tapes.)

So now since the trial is not being moved to Anchorage, there will not have to be an automatic delay to send out notices for jurors, etc. Finding 12 Alaskan jurors who haven't heard about this case would have taken a while. Maybe someone back from a year in Antarctica or someone living in a cabin outside of Chicken. It took 2 1/2 days to select a jury in Anchorage for Pete Kott.

With the trial staying in DC, we'll find out how much he really wants a speedy trial, or whether this was all dependent on moving back to Alaska.

Saying they want a speedy trial to prove Sen. Stevens' innocence before the election is a good political move. It's been well reported. But being convicted before the election won't be a good move.

So they can now argue that they wanted a speedy trial, but, damn, the prosecutors dumped so many boxes of materials on them that to ensure Sen Stevens gets justice, they'll need more time before they can be ready for the trial. It's not our fault, it's the Prosecutor's fault for collecting so much irrelevant material, but we still have to go through all of it to protect our client

So what happens if Stevens gets convicted before the election? A couple of lawyer friends say he would be forced out of the Senate if he's conviceted. If that happens, the Governor can appoint his replacement as Senator.

BUT, I believe the Republican party chooses who his replacement as candidate would be. Not totally sure on this, but I think this is the case.

Since Governor Palin and Republican party head Ruedrich don't get along too well, it is conceivable if all this played out just right, that they could appoint different people.

NPR reports Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones Dies of [Suffers] [Dies of] an Aneurysm

[Update 11:17am: I don't usually deal with late breaking news and as you can see, I don't do it well. But now there are a reports online such as this updated ABC News report that reports that Congresswoman Jones has passed away.]


On NPR they just announced that Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones just passed away.

[11:07am NPR just had an on-the-hour report that says she is in the hospital with an aneurysm, but alive. I'm not sure why the conflicting reports on the same network.]

I'm checking the internet, I found this report from a couple of hours ago from ABC news when she was reported as 'stabilized.'

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, was hospitalized Tuesday night at the Huron Road Hospital in East Cleveland after suffering an aneurysm while driving her car in Cleveland Heights.
As of noon ET on Tuesday, her condition had "stabilized," according to a statement released by her office.

This is significant to this blog because I have posted about the number of black members of Congress which gets a few hits daily. I put it up when I found no site where I could find a clear, accurate list where I could count how many black members of Congress there are. Trying to keep up to date on that list is not easy. I have added this information, but I'm not sure that there haven't been other additions or deletions since I posted it.

The picture is from About.com which also has a bio on Congresswoman Jones.

Ted Stevens on Talk of Alaska - My Question

Steve Heimel hosted Senator Stevens on Talk of Alaska today. (The audio isn't up yet, but should be by this evening I think.) Since I'm a writer more than a talker, I emailed my question in. But apparently the guys who read the emails were still recovering from a late night of Running.


The Senator was explaining that his wealth of experience and knowledge made it important for him to be retained in the Senate to protect the interest of Alaska. Here's my question to the Senator that didn't get asked:

Senator, you have said that your many years of experience and knowledge of issues is critical to represent Alaska and protect our interests.

Isn't that always going to be the case? How do you propose that your eventual successor be prepared to take office? Right now, you are still healthy enough to act as a mentor for a new Senator, that may not be the case in six more years.

If you should lose to Mark Begich, what role do you see for yourself in helping get him up to speed to fight for Alaska?

If you get to hear the show, see if you agree with my assessment that he was pretty belligerent to anyone who pushed for more than a superficial answer to questions he didn't want to answer. I understand that he'd said he wasn't going to talk about the impending trial, but it's just as easy (well, maybe not for him) to politely deflect the question as it is to sputter in anger at the callers.

I do think that age and succession are important issues for Alaskans to think about in this election. I note this from Time Magazine's 1962 Senate Scorecard:

Alaska. Senator Ernest Gruening, territorial Governor back in pre-statehood days, is challenged by Republican Ted Stevens, a former U.S. attorney only half Gruening's age (38 to 75). But Stevens will probably have to wait a while.

Today's challenger is 46 to Stevens' 84 years, more than half Stevens' even greater age.

My mother's a couple years older than the Senator and she only retired last year. She has good days days and not so good days, and my experience with others in their mid-80s suggests that while their brains can still be sharp, their bodies simply aren't as reliable as they once were.

Stevens did a fair amount of mumbling on today's radio show as he tried to get his words out. Hey, I do that too sometimes. But if you set yourself up as a candidate for office, you invite people to candidly assess your abilities.

There is a reluctance - I feel it myself - to challenge elders. I know that his knowledge of Alaska and particularly of the US Senate and Alaska is unrivaled. But one day, he will leave the Senate. It would be better when he's still alive and well enough to help his successor. And respect for elders apparently didn't stop Ted Stevens when he first ran for Senate. Michael Carey writes:

As a much younger candidate for the Senate, Stevens repeatedly hammered incumbent Ernest Gruening as too old. His attacks in 1968 were blunt, personal and quite jarring -- especially as the "aged" Ernest Gruening was younger then than Stevens is now.

Some Stevens' supporters say we should vote for him because of all he has done for us. But we should also remember that the young Ted Stevens didn't have that attitude toward the 78 year old Ernest Gruening. The Senator would have us believe it is not about him, but about what is good for the State of Alaska. Then we shouldn't simply vote for Stevens out of respect for what he has done in the past, but we should consider which candidate is poised to do the most good for us in the future.

Peter's Sushi - After and Before

The fire was August 12. I posted some pictures August 15 and here are two views of then and yesterday. The Fire Department says the reports are not complete yet, but the debris is totally gone.

Bear Tooth - Texas 4000 - Cleo and the Shadowlands

Before the movie - Cleo 5 to 7 - a group of young men and women from Austin, Texas passed around a mic, and told us why they had joined the Texas 4000 bike trip from Austin to Anchorage.

It's a fund raiser for the American Cancer Society and each rider, we were told, raised at least $4000 in pledges, which comes to $160,000 for all 40 of them.


This is all a good thing, but as they spoke about why they had joined this bike ride, I couldn't help but whisper sarcastic comments into J's ear before suppressing my contrarian thoughts.

Then there was a preview for the movie Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter Thomposon which glorified his cuttingly blunt, political reporting. "He was not afraid to express himself in sometimes shocking ways" says Jimmy Carter. "He captured certain truths about human perversity" says Tim Crouse,the author of Boys on the Bus.

Cleo From 5 to 7 turned out to be a black and white (except for the opening scene) 1962 French film about a beautiful hypochondriac from 5 to 7pm awaiting word from her doctor on her cancer diagnosis.. This is NOT a film I would have picked for a cancer fighting fundraiser.

So, I thought about my blog and Hunter Thompson - a man I have little admiration for as a person, but I can't help but acknowledge that sometimes the severely dysfunctional are the ones who can see hypocrisy and truth much more clearly than others, and I do admire the ability to see and write truths.

Then we watched Shadowlands, a much richer film than Cleo, that portrays a CS Lewis who also can't say what's on his mind for most of the movie. And that's when I decided I couldn't NOT say what I was thinking.

So, here are my blasphemous thoughts on the bikers. As the mic passed from hand to hand, people basically said, in various levels of articulation, that they were inspired to join this long ride because of [fill in family member, friend] who [survived, is fighting, lost to] cancer. And thinking about their personal cancer victims kept them pedaling 4000 miles.

I know they've been on the road for a couple of months, this is the end of the trip, and they've been paraded out in front of crowds to recite this mantra hundreds of times. But I wanted just one person to sound real, just one person to say something like:

I did this because I wanted to come to Alaska.
I did this because otherwise I would have had to work for the summer.
I did this because I'm crazy and this seemed like a really crazy thing to do.

I wanted someone to be real, to not robotically fill the stereotypical role of do-gooder who modestly says I did it all for the Gipper. These are flesh and blood young men and women in their early 20s or so who've pedaled 4000 miles. I'm sure they had some rousing times, interesting adventures, but in tonight's performance all passion was bleached out.

I can just hear some of you gasping - how can he say something nasty about these kids who gave up their summer to raise money to fight cancer?

I know these kids did a good thing, I'm sure they inspired people - and yes I too have people close to me who are cancer survivors and victims and I know that malignant neoplasms are the leading cause of death in Alaska [I posted the stats just this week] and raising money to find ways to fight it are important.

I also know that fighting cancer costs lots of money and funding it through bike rides rather than through a national commitment to spend more, carefully monitored money on cancer research than on killing and maiming people in the Middle East is really a giant joke. According to the National Cancer Institute the US spent about
$1.4 billion on cancer research in 2007. According to Wikipedia we spend about $12 billion per month or about
$144 billion per year on the Iraq war.

I propose to Congress that they appropriate $1.4 billion for the Iraq war next year and suggest to President Bush that he can organize bike rides and bake sales to fund the rest of the expenses next year after he's out of the White House.

If you think that sounds preposterous, why don't you think funding cancer research through bike rides is a joke too?

It's also true that by passively playing our roles as consumers, like these kids played their roles as dedicated fundraisers in the theater tonight, of chemical products that have polluted our air, water, land, and bodies, we have contributed, in part, to the high levels of cancer in the world today.

I don't deny that riding bikes to Alaska is work, but these kids didn't 'give up' their summer, they had a great adventure they'll never forget. I also understand it is one way, maybe the best way, that this group of college students and alum, could make their contribution. And I'm sure the ride gave them lots of time to think. I hope they had the information available to think about how cancer is caused, how the dismantling of regulatory agencies and the exporting of manufacturing to countries with minimal environmental protections all play a role in our high cancer rates. I don't want to diminish the value of their contributions. If forty riders raised $4000 each, that comes to $160,000. And I'm a strong believer in the idea that many small contributions add up to real money.

But if they had spent half the time they spent riding, becoming experts on cancer - the science, the economics, and the politics, and not just the personal drama - I think they would be a lot more powerful advocates of change than they are now, and this summer would not fade into a memory of a great adventure in which they raised enough to pay the annual average salary of two pharmaceutical drug reps.

Hunter and Jack (CS), was this post ok?

Renewing Old Ties

Thursday, CY and WF dropped by from the airport on their way to Homer. CY was a professor in my program when I taught a year in Hong Kong 1989-90. He was very excited to hear that an Alaskan was coming because he is a serious fisherman who comes regularly to fish here. We hadn't seen them for quite a long time and though the visit was short it was nice to reconnect and catch up and hear about other faculty in the program.






Friday night after seeing "La Casa de Babys" at the museum - yes those red things in yesterday's post are in front of the museum as several people guessed - we stopped at Barnes and Noble. First I bumped into Darren and then Terry. Terry is a year younger than my son and lived across the street for a while. We hadn't seen him since his parents' 30th (I think) wedding anniversary a few years ago. It was great to see him again and his wife who preferred not having her picture taken. Terry was fine, but the picture is blurred, so above is the picture of them they agreed to.





This afternoon we went to an open house at some friends' place because their daughter and grandson are in town. I've known K for a long time and there were so many people to talk to K and I really only had a few minutes to talk. I'm hoping we'll get another chance before she goes back to LA.





And finally, surpassing even how long it's been since I'd seen Doug, is Harriet. She, her husband, and brother and sister-in-law are here for their Alaska adventure. Harriet was in my Peace Corps group - Thailand 19 - and I haven't seen her since then. She told me to pick a restaurant. How could I not pick the Thai Kitchen to renew old (I won't succumb to that tired pun) ties?


For those of you who thought this was about how to bring your old neckties back to life, I found this video that answers the question of a young man who's facing two years as a missionary in Honduras and says that the rules are that the ties must be conservative, "but nothing says they can't be awesome." The beginning of this video from threadhead shows how to renew those old ties.

How to Re-Fashion an Old Tie