Why Most Alaskans Haven't Seen Off-Road Alaska

Except for people who have to fly to off-road Alaska for work, most Alaskans haven't seen those parts of the state, because it's generally significantly cheaper to fly Outside the state.  At least from Anchorage.  Here's an example from today's Club 49 specials. 

Dutch Harbor - 793 miles from Anchorage - is, and this is a special deal, $349 one way.  That comes to $.47 per mile.

Anchorage to Denver comes to $.08 per mile. 

Anchorage to Los Angeles comes to $.0678 per mile. 



The Nome price, for Alaska travel, seems almost reasonable, until you calculate that it comes to $.20 per mile, a lot cheaper than Dutch Harbor, but three times as much as to LA.






Note:  The Dutch Harbor, Denver, and Nome images come from the Club 49 page today.  Club 49 is a special deal for Alaska residents only.  The only way I've figured out how to get to it from the Alaska Airlines website, is to use Ask Jenn, the website's Virtual Assistant.  I either get to it from an email link or by googling.

The LA flight information was from looking up ANC-LAX flights for April.

The distance information comes from the Alaska Airlines Timetable. 

There's More Than Mayor Candidates On Tuesday's Ballot

Besides the long list of mayoral candidates, there are ballot measures too.

Prop. 1: $59,250,000 Capital Improvements for the Anchorage School District Bonds

Prop. 2: $6,760,000 Areawide Safety and Public Transportation Capital Improvement Bonds

Prop. 3: $5,350,000 Areawide Facilities Capital Improvement Project Bonds

Prop. 4: $2,750,000 Anchorage Parks and Recreation Service Area Capital Improvement Bonds

Prop. 5: $17,030,000 Anchorage Roads and Drainage Service Area Road and Storm Drainage Bonds

Prop. 6: $1,800,000 Anchorage Fire Service Area Fire Protection Bonds

Then there's one more that only Girdwood residents vote on to create and maintain a municipal cemetery in Girdwood.

The League of Women Voters has the details of each measure here.

Altogether, these six measures add about $26 to the tax bill of someone in a $100,000 house according to the document.  That's about $100 for a $400,000 house.  Or about the cost of taking a family of four to dinner and a movie.  Even for a cheap guy like me, that's a real bargain.  We all pitch in a little bit and get a lot in return. 

[For those of you who are subscribers and are getting this for the third time, I apologize.  I'm reposting it because Feedburner is not sending this out to blogrolls and reposting has been an imperfect, but sometimes successful, way to get it to work in the past.]

Tjere [Updated]

[Update: Monday 9:37am:  This must be the shortest post ever.  There's a good reason.  I'd typed the title and it had saved (not published) and then I went back and edited it and wrote a whole new post.  That was the one on why our brains are wired to ignore climate change.   Somehow, that became a separate post and then this one went up too.  I'd prepared another post on the bond issues in tomorrow's election in Anchorage, but hadn't posted it.  When I checked that page, it was still open waiting to be published.  Except, except, it said, "revert to draft" instead of publish.  That means it's been published already, so I just closed it instead.  But now it seems to be totally gone.  Happy Monday.]

Why Our Brains Are Wired To Ignore Climate Change.

That's the subtitle of a book by George Marshall, the Citizens' Climate Lobby speaker at Saturday's international phone in meeting.  He called in from Wales, I believe, and spoke to the 250 or so local chapters around the US and Canada.  (I don't recall hearing that the European, Asian, Australian, or South American chapters are in on the calls.)

I'm in LA, so I biked over to the LA chapter meeting in Westwood.  It was fun to meet CCL folks here and I got a lot of ideas from them to take back to Anchorage - events they're participating in, they've made CCL T-shirts, and they were really well focused on evaluating which of their activities had the most impact so they can best use their time.

And it was also interesting to ponder on how in Anchorage, with a population of 310,000 we get 10-12 people at most meetings and the LA group had only eight people (plus they poached one Alaskan). (Several of their regular members were out of town or otherwise busy Saturday.)  We talked about how it is harder in a big metropolitan area to get people than in a smaller place where people know each other better.  And even though California is a very blue state in the midst of an historic drought, they related that people really don't want to talk about it - which is what the speaker, George Marshall said too.  But in Anchorage, I don't see that.  People talk about climate change all the time - it's effects are much more visible.  And maybe the effects we have - glaciers retreating at record rates, sea ice disappearance meaning more open water and massive erosion of coast lines and villages on them, permafrost melting, snow-free dogsledding - are all easier to connect to global warming.  And we also have a Fairbanks chapter and a couple more chapters hatching - in the MatSu valley and in Sitka.  Whereas the LA chapter covers a bunch of congressional districts, we in Alaska can all focus on one member of congress.

Our group was pretty old, pretty white, and economically comfortable.  There needs to be a younger and more diverse group. And we do in Anchorage.   On the other hand, this older, well educated group, have the perspective, time, and resources to fight this battle.  We have our grand children's futures at stake. 

Anyway, the book, as Marshall described it, goes into how the brain is wired - the rational thinking side is slower to act than the emotional side.  And since this is

1. a complex problem that requires a lot of patience to truly understand
2. a problem people don't want to accept 
3. a story they don't like 
4. and a story teller they don't like

the doubters will continue to doubt.   He also discussed confirmation bias - that we seek out and believe those 'facts' that support our preset beliefs.  This is a problem for both sides - the believers in climate change and the doubters. 

This is a problem that has costs today, for a problem that most people see as out in the future (and for the doubters, if at all).

So, his advice is to change the structure of the story.

• It's something happening here and now - it's what's behind the severe weather patterns we are seeing around the globe
• There's a powerful story here, but there is no 'enemy' and enemies are important for getting people to act   - so we tend to make the doubters the enemy which isn't a story they buy

He talked about this as the biggest story we DON'T tell.  There is a great silence.  This isn't part of my experience, but I recognize that because I'm tuned into this story, I see it everywhere. Other people at the meeting did mention later that they experienced people not wanting to talk about climate change.  In fact he said we should take a page from the religious communities that  takes their messages out to strangers. He talked about a 'socially constructed science' that makes people purposely avoid the topic and likened it to the silence about apartheid in South Africa - which was also a big silence. 

He said he respects the energy and drive of the Tea Party who are opposed to how things are and we should treat them respectfully (ah, yes, my detractors don't like that message I keep giving) and engage them in climate change discussions and get them away from the other issues that are distracting them.  He praised CCL for its conviction that we must speak with those who don't agree with us and that we treat them with respect. 

Great change can happen quickly, he said, and recommended Adam Hochschild's Bury The Chains, an account of high a small group in England took on all the vested interests to get slavery banned at the end of the 18th Century.

In some ways, this speaker had less to tell me that I didn't know than most other speakers, but there were still some nuggets and reinforcement of things I know, but haven't articulated lately. 

You can listen in to the meeting here (while you jog or clean the bathroom or whatever task you have where you can listen too).

One thought I had was about how to make this story very much here and now - it's to ask the person I talk to, to think about the world they will be leaving for their children and grandchildren.  To take their ages and add 25 years.  How old will they be?  Anyone over 50 knows that 25 years will come quickly.  I think of my 2 year old granddaughter and nearly one year old grandson.  I don't want them to be in their mid-twenties in a world of chaos caused by climate change.  Where weather patterns have disrupted human food production and people are literally fighting for food and water.  It's already happening around the world.  The revolt in Syria happened after years of drought and increasing economic instability for farmers.  While we currently have the resources to recover from storms like Sandy, other parts of the world don't, and as time goes by, and disasters become even more common,  neither will we.

That's why I think this fight is worth fighting now.  As someone said Saturday, maybe Marshall, the gains we make now are like compound interest - the benefits grow quickly.  But, in this case, the benefits really are just a lessening of the climate caused disruptions of humanity. 

And I'm at CCL meetings the first Saturday of each month, because they are highly and efficiently focused on one goal now - getting a carbon fee with dividend passed by congress.  Shi-Ling Hsu The Case for a  Carbon Tax convinced me that this was the most politically feasible option that could seriously lower carbon emissions.  This organization is incredible at energizing and supporting its members, networking with like-minded organizations, and moving toward the goal.  Being there is a lesson for any non-profit on how to operate.  (I say this as a very critical student of organization behavior.)

Margie and crew, thanks for being such gracious hosts to this Alaskan. 

Catching The Power Of Art In Action In Venice And Selfie Wall

I passed to people painting the power box for the traffic signal at Lincoln and Rose, so I rode back to ask about what they were doing.

 

Blair Abney is in the green hat and Ian Soto is working on the other side.  They told me it's part of a program to let artists paint various traffic signals. And he went through his paper work and showed me this letter.  It didn't have the name of the group, but it did show permission to paint the boxes at various intersections, including Lincoln and Rose.  Blair can be found as Peachie Paws on Deviant Art and Ian as Mongoose Jack. ([Blair sent me the link.]  I'm leaving the link off until I'm sure because there are different Mongoose names at Deviant Art, and nothing exactly Mongoose Jack.)

The wording does seem a bit odd - the head of the Department of Transportation "approves [a] request" from a city council member, as though the city council didn't have the ultimate power over the city's department of transportation.  Rather than 'approving' it seems he should be "happy to carrying out the council member's request", or, if necessary, pointing out the regulation that is in the way.  I know nothing about Selwyn Hollins*, but it seems a pompous way to respond. 

I did google traffic signal box painting and got to The Power Of Art's website.  I also found their business plan which included their mission statement:

"The Power of Art’s mission is to enable artists, organizations, and everyday people to paint murals on traffic signal boxes and in crosswalks on more than 4,000 street corners in Los Angeles. The vision of Power of Art is to unite and inspire Los Angeles’s artists, organizations, and everyday people by giving them the opportunity to leave their creative mark on history through artistically transforming their communities. "

The art on the box above isn't quite my style - a little to Disneyish.  I like this sort of stuff to be a little edgier, but a lot of people like this as well.  And it's better than a plain box. 

A mile later, when I got to the beach, I passed this selfie wall which gives people a place to take selfies with a bit of a smirk.

According to @The MostFamousArtist at #selfiewall, this was completed March 12.  



*When I write something like "I know nothing about . . ." I, of course, then have to see what I can find.  Here's a very brief bio.

LA Miscellaneous - Great Thai Food, Movie Release, Rose

Here are some shots I've taken this week.  Been busy reading student papers, doing errands for my mom, and enjoying the sunshine. 

We had dinner Wednesday night at Thai Emporium with good friends from Anchorage who fled south to be near their grandkids.

WOW! This was the most authentic Thai food I can remember having in the US, outside of a wat.  I jumped when I saw pak bung fai dang, and saator on the menu.  I haven't had saator (my spelling, don't really pronounce the r but the o gets changed as if there were an r) since I stayed in Bangkok in 1989 for a month with Thai friends.  They are from southern Thailand and it was the first time I remember having that bean.  Pak Bung is a pretty common dish in Thailand, but not something you see on menus in the US.    It's on Westwood in among all the Persian places.  My mouth was back in Thailand. 

Lots of people gathered around to see some tv show being filmed on the beach next to the Santa Monica pier.  Made biking tricky.  Lots of fancy motorcycles and some women in fishnet stockings, short shorts, and heavy makeup.  A reality show?  Who knows.

I thought this was a pretty lame excuse for a photo release, but I'm not sure what you do in such an open, public place.  What about people who don't come along the bike trail?

In this is one of lots of flowers I saw as we walked from the bus stop to my mom's place when we got in Sunday morning.   Coming from snowless, but also flowerless, Anchorage  it's always nice to see all the flowers everywhere any time of the year. 

". . . with the state's dire financial crisis, pursuing expensive litigation that has little chance of victory is an unwise use of our dwindling resources," [Updated]

[UPDATE April 4, 2015:  Here's an update where the governor says he wouldn't have done it, but his attorney general called the shot.  Since he's the one who can hire and fire the AG, sounds like a lame excuse.]  

"Despite my personal views on marriage, with the state's dire financial crisis, pursuing expensive litigation that has little chance of victory is an unwise use of our dwindling resources," he [Walker] said."  (ADN October 13, 2014)

Yet today I learned that Alaska is party to the Amicus Brief against gay marriage in the appeal of the 6th Circuit Court's decision to the US Supreme Court.  

The governor's statement comes pretty close to an explicit promise.  I know lots of Alaskans who took it as a promise not to pursue the state's appeal of the decisions against the decisions that resulted in gay marriage being legal in our state, despite our state constitutions amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.

Given that, it didn't occur to anyone that we would join to fight for the rights of  Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky to block gay marriage.

As an Alaskan, I'm chagrined and embarrassed.  Governor, you don't have a lot of support among the Republicans in the legislature on key issues.  You shouldn't also piss off the majority of Alaskans who elected you as well.

Here's the outline of the argument being made in our names:

Argument................................................................................ 2
    I.    Determining the shape and meaning of marriage is
 a fundamental exercise of self-government by
state citizens .................................................................. 2
    A.    Our Constitution ensures that state citizens
 have the sovereign authority to govern themselves ............................................................... 2 

    B.    The States’ exercise of sovereign authority is
 at its apex in domestic relations law........................ 4 

    C.    In deciding whether to adopt same-sex marriage, state citizens exercise their sovereign authority to determine the meaning
of marriage ................................. 7 

    II.    A decision constitutionalizing same-sex marriage would erase the sovereignty of state citizens to determine the meaning of marriage............................... 9


   A. Such a decision would abandon the premise of Windsor .......................... 11 

    B.    Such a decision would dilute the numerous democratic victories recently won in the States
by proponents of same-sex marriage..................... 17 

    C.    Such a decision would eliminate the States’
role as laboratories of democracy in the realm
of domestic relations ............................................. 19 

    D.    Such a decision would announce that state citizens are incapable of resolving this issue through constructive civil discourse...................... 21 


OK, with that off my chest, does Alaska's name on the brief matter?  I suspect not much, but it is one more state the group can point to.   I'm guessing our Department of Law didn't contribute a lot to the amicus brief from the states.  But, it's the first major broken promise to the coalition that elected Walker.  We knew Walker was a Republican, but he did promise to focus on the gas pipeline and the budget and leave social issues alone. 

Can A Kosher Caterer Refuse To Serve Ham? Bad Analogy

Here's the letter to the editor in the LA Times today:

To the editor: A Christian couple have the right serve ham at their wedding reception, but shouldn't a kosher caterer have the right — on religious grounds — to decline their business?
Chris Norby, Fullerton

 This letter is in response to the backlash against the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

Because of the strong backlash, it's clear people understand what was wrong with the law passed and signed last week.  But I also recognize that some Christians still don't get it.  And I can understand that someone who is strongly opposed to gay marriage and thinks that opposition is based on the bible (rather than an interpretation of the bible, or the use of the bible to justify a personal bias), would feel that having to celebrate a gay union by taking good photographs or by baking a cake for the wedding would be a compromise of values. 

I would not like to be the photographer who is hired to make the Ku Klux Klan look warm and fuzzy. 

And I've written about this conflict when it was an issue in Arizona.  and raised a lot of the contextual issues.     

In the case of this letter to the editor, we can focus more narrowly on this false analogy.  The two situations just aren't the same.  

A wedding photographer is asked to take pictures at a wedding, exactly the same thing he does at any other wedding.  What's different is that the couple he's taking pictures of are the same gender. He's not being asked to marry another man or even to hold hands with another man.  He's not being asked to do anything at all that could be construed as having sex with someone of the same gender.  Christianity has many prescriptions and prohibitions, but many Christians agree that the golden rule is a key concept in Christianity.  It doesn't say, treat good people like you would have others treat you. 

So, a wedding photographer, is being asked to do what he does for a living - take pictures at a wedding.  In taking pictures at a gay wedding, the photographer takes pictures like he would at any other wedding, plus, if the photographer is uncomfortable or even hates lgbt folks, he has the opportunity to follow the golden rule, indeed, to follow Matthew's even more relevant words, "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

On the other hand, kosher caterers, never serve pork.  So, to ask a kosher caterer to serve pork, would be to ask him to do something he doesn't do in the course of his business.  He doesn't serve pork to anyone.  Similarly,  professional photographer who never  does weddings, could easily turn down a request from a gay couple to photograph their wedding without it being discrimination.  He doesn't even need a religious reason. 

The point is, if you offer services to the public, you can't refuse those services to someone except for legitimate business reasons - they can't pay, they are disturbing other clients, they are asking for services you don't normally provide, they are underage for the service you provide, or other personal issues about specific individuals that disrupt your business.  

I would note an additional problem for kosher caterers.  In addition to ham and shellfish prohibitions (all of which are in the bible, by the way, so perhaps the photographer shouldn't take pictures at any wedding that has ham or shellfish), kosher caterers may not serve meat and milk dishes in the same meal and those products may not use even the same dishes.  And the dishes have to be washed in separate sinks and stored in separate cabinets.  Serving ham would ruin all the caterers dishes and cutlery for future kosher events.   Not just ham would be a problem,  cheeseburgers would be forbidden, and you couldn't have the guests use the same plates even for meat and dairy related foods.

A wedding photographer or cake maker, on the other hand, is simply doing the job they would do for any other wedding. They aren't being asked to use special equipment or ingredients.  They aren't changing anything they normally do.  What's different is they object to the addition or subtraction of one penis in the wedding party. 

For lgbt folks, this isn't about forcing Christian photographers to take pictures at their weddings.  It's about not being discriminated against by businesses based on their sexual orientation.  

Taking good wedding photos is an art.  An artist who hates the assignment he's given, won't produce good work.  A baker who thinks gay weddings are an abomination, might be distracted enough to put too much salt in the cake batter.   

I'm sure that the vast majority of gay couples do not want someone who hates gays to take pictures at their wedding.  Most gay couples will want to patronize gay friendly businesses anyway.  But in the case where someone lives in a remote community and there is only one photographer or one bakery, the issue arises.  But the key issues is the moral and legal point about discrimination and not serving people simple out of personal dislike, even if the dislike is somehow connected to religion.  This just sounds too much like, I'm not a racist, but  . . .

I might be a little more sympathetic to self proclaimed Christian photographers if they also refused to do weddings of people who were having sex before they got married, or if they continued violating any of the ten commandments - not respecting the sabbath, stealing, killing, not honoring their parents, coveting, say, as big a wedding as someone else, etc.  

On a much larger level, I would hope that people see issues like this as mere distractions from the really important threats to our democratic society - the power of corporations over Congress, through financing elections, resulting in their ability to pass legislation that further increases the power of corporations to the detriment of most other Americans.   Climate change.  Grossly unequal distribution of wealth (a result of all that corporate power over Congress.) 

As a side note, I did find a sermon that seems to have been widely distributed that does use the kosher caterer to raise questions about religious organizations being forced to comply with the Affordable Care Act.  I think that's a closer analogy, but there are still problems there as well. 

Obama Offers Refuge On US Land To Nine Climate Threatened Nations

President Obama today announced that the US would provide new homelands for the nine most climate-change endangered island nations in the world (see table below).  Here is part of the text of the president's speech: 

These nine nations, with a total land size of 1300 square miles (almost the size of Yosemite National Park, 4/5 the size of Rhode Island, and 2/3 the size of Anchorage, Alaska) with a total population of just under 900.000 (less than 1/3 of one percent of the US population), are severely threatened by sea level rise caused by global warming.

These are independent nations whose very existence is threatened by changes in the world's climate caused, in large part, by the side effects of our great prosperity.  We have a moral obligation to the people of these nations, an obligation to assure them that the world will not only find space for them to live, but will also respect their cultures and sovereignty.

There are many different ways the world can react to the crisis faced by these nations.  The world has shown, time and again, its generosity to nations suffering from natural disasters.  But the nations of the world often take a long time to come to agreements  to assist in  human caused disasters.  Thus, today I am guaranteeing that if, by 2020, the United Nations or other international bodies have not found a fair and suitable way to relocate these nations, the United States will find federally owned land in the United States.  The people of each nation must decide whether they want to remain sovereign nations or not.  If they do, they can have the same status US Indian tribes have as sovereign nations within the United States.

These are just the nine nations most immediately threatened by climate change.  I am taking the lead today in this, in hopes that other nations will quickly line up to assist the other nations that will face climate change related disasters later."

Pacific Ocean	Caribbean Sea	Indian Ocean	Size m2 / k2	Population
Marshall Islands			70/181	68,000
Kiribati			313/811	103,500
Tuvalu			10/26	10, 837
Tonga			289/748	103,036
Federated States of Micronesia			271/702	106,104
Cook Islands			91/240	19,569
	Antigua		108/281	80,161
	Nevis		35/93	12,106
		Maldives	115/298	393,500

From Reuters Youtube of Maldives President Cabinet Meeting

The president of the Maldives sent an official thank you letter after a cabinet meeting in their under water chamber.  Other island presidents praised Obama for his humanity and foresight. 

Republicans in the House and Senate were quick to blast the president.  Former Canadian citizen  Ted Cruz blasted the president for proposing to bring more immigrants to the US before solving the existing immigration problem.  He went on to say it was totally unnecessary anyway: 

"The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened,"

House Speaker John Boehner found the idea of giving federal land to foreigners outrageous.  

"That land belongs to the states it's in."

Senate majority leader  Mitch McConnell was nearly unintelligible, his face red and contorted, as he listened to the speech.  

"Half those lands are former British colonies.  Let the English take them in."

In response to reporters' questions about his critics' charges, Obama said,

"The United States is also a former British colony, and few of us would choose to go back to Great Britain.  And yes, there are low lying US cities that are threatened, like Manhattan and Miami.  We will help New Yorkers cope as their island goes underwater.  Remember, too, they are United States citizens who have the right to move anywhere in the US.   However, we are certain that Floridians, whose governor has banned the terms climate change and global warming, will trust that Governor Scott will also ban climate change itself.  We will, of course, send scuba gear for residents, just in case their governor's voodoo doesn't work. 

All of the critics of this policy are also strong supporters, as am I,  of Israel, a country that was created in the Middle East, at a time when the Jewish people faced the possibility of extinction.  If we can ask the people who were living in what now is Israel to share their land, surely Americans can share a tiny fraction of our land with these tiny island nations."

Three law suits have already been  filed in federal courts challenging the president's power to carry out any of these promises.  For the president's complete speech and Republican responses, click here.    For people who wish to know more about this issue, here is a report I've found since writing, but before publishing, this post.

Yamato Ya Becomes Sushi Yako

We told friends to meet us at Yamato Ya, a Japanese restaurant we'd been going to since - it seems forever.  If I recall right they were in what's now the New Sagaya mall on Old Seward before it was the New Sagaya.  A long time Anchorage Japanese family ran it, with three sisters waiting tables.  When it passed down to a younger relative from Hawaii, the sisters - in their seventies  - gradually eased out.

When their lease was up in 2011, New Sagaya raised the rent and they decided to move down the street closer to Moose's Tooth.  The move changed the atmosphere quite a bit.

The Alaska Wine Guy moved into their old space.

It was no longer the cozy little restaurant with sushi bar.  There was just too much room, but we kept going, even as the menu, including the prices, morphed a bit.  But the much younger Thai waitresses were always very friendly and the food was good.  I'd recommended it recently to a group I know, but they told me that it was closed.  We'd just eaten there and as I passed it recently the sign was still there.

So we arrived, just as our friends were calling us to say it wasn't Yamato Ya.  I was parked looking at this big sign - same as before - seeing Sushi Yako over the old image and not registering this was, in fact, a new name.   

We decided to go in and try it out.

It's a totally new place, even though the sign is almost identical. 

While they are waiting for their liquor license, the waitress told us, the sushi plates (except for the specials) are $9.99.  









They've changed the interior look dramatically with this blue wine rack in the middle.

The wait staff was very friendly and helpful, but it appears that one of the last Japanese owned Japanese restaurants in Anchorage has become Korean.