Comments by critical_reader
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on May 15 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
adn.com has a more complete story on this that will answer many of the questions posed here (kids, IRS, etc.). John Harris worries about fraud with the debit cards--people selling them, and using the money to buy other things. So what? One way or another, the debit cards can only be used for fuel. One way or another, fuel prices are really hurting our buying power for everything else, whether it's food, medicines, or simply good ol' beer. Apparently we'd have to pay federal income tax on the debit cards--that's a downside I hope we can avoid. It would be nice to see Ted and Don's last act in office getting an exemption for that. Fuel is so integral to all other parts of the economy that it really doesn't matter how we spend the money, but the relief--essentially a forced reduction in a painfully high price--will help all around.
Thanks Governor Palin. If other republicans behaved like you (treating people with respect), I might consider voting for them.
On Alaska proposes $1.2 billion program to help offset energy costs
Posted on April 30 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since oil supply is only one of many factors affecting pump prices we pay, it's hard to say that a 2% increase in supply would translate into anything near a 2% drop in pump prices. If a pump price of $3.70 per gallon was dropped 2%, it would go down 7.4 cents to $3.63. Wow, spectacular. What a "big difference," NewsMiner!
That's the maximum savings we could expect. As I noted before, there's a history of other producers (i.e. OPEC) reducing their supplies specifically to keep crude prices high when new competing supplies come online.
If Bush, Stevens, the Murkowskis, Young, et al had their way, ANWR would have been drilled, drained, dried up and capped by now, and we wouldn't even have the luxury of discussing this option.
Yes, the part of me that sees an intrinsic value to wild and fragile regions wants us to never need to drill in ANWR. But the shrewd conservative in me--the true conservative who wants to actually "conserve"--thinks we should hold on to ANWR's oil until a point in the future when we are the last place left on earth with a decent oil reserve. Think of the strategic power that holds for the U.S., and for Alaska.
Posted on April 30 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Energy Information Administration, which is the Energy Department's independent analytical arm, actually researches statistics. They find that ANWR oil would supply 2% of U.S. consumption, and that would be at full production 18 years out. 10 years out is the minimum time it would take to get oil flowing, and the volume then would be a miniscule fraction of U.S. consumption. Various oil industry experts have also noted that it's common for OPEC or other large producers to cut back production in response to new reserves coming online, specifically to maintain high prices.
Newsminer, it took me about 10 minutes to "mine" these statistics (Reuters, "Analysis-Bush drilling plan wouldn't have eased pump prices" by Tom Doggett, 4/29/08). It must be fun to just write any old opinion without a responsibility to the facts at hand.
2% of supply 18 years out--there's the "big difference" you talk up.
Posted on April 22 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This strikes me as an invented news story. How do you write the headline "...falls under scrutiny," and then write a story with no reference to anyone actually scrutinizing Palin's decision?
Yes, it's a decent human-interest story that our governor was experienced enough with childbirth to know it was safe to take a long flight home, and, very thankfully, all are healthy and well. But who exactly questioned her choice? It really sounds like you (dnm) are inventing controversy where little or none exists.
Congratulations and best wishes to the Palin family.
Posted on April 21 at 1:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on, Babylon!!!
Posted on April 21 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Byrd, very much like Stevens, has done some incredible things for his state. West Virginians and Alaskans should be proud of the truly historic achievements of both. Time for both of them to go, though, for age and at least a few ethical problems.
Ugh, I'm so sorry, I just noticed I used "hear" when I meant "here" in my last post. Need to critically read my own words, as well.
Posted on April 20 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To say this paper has a liberal bias at all is pretty ridiculous, and to use this particular story to argue that is just plain dumb. Aknatuff, I guess you didn't read the by-line before commenting--it's an AP wire story!
However, I'm up for the argument, let's say dnm should be judged by the AP or other wire stories it prints. How's this line for liberal bias?
"Federal authorities are reviewing the remodeling of the Stevens' official residence...."
Federal authorities? That would be the FBI.
Reviewing? That would be a criminal investigation.
If Ted is reelected, he will be 90 by the end of his next term. Who hear thinks he/she will do a great job at their present job at that age?
As if there aren't a dozen other reasons for him to retire now.
Where do any of you find basis for your assumption that Begich is not a good candidate?
Posted on April 7 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I attended the caucus as a district 7 voter. I am so thankful to the volunteers who ran it. It was a circus, but it would have been a total disaster had those volunteers not realized in advance what a huge turnout was coming. They found another location to take district 8(?), so the main location was less overwhelmed. For the number of people who showed up, it actually didn't take that much time. The organization of the process--registering new democrats, etc.--was as smooth as could be with the design of the building.
Although I was not in the majority with those attending as to who I supported, it made me feel so good to see so many people turn out to make a stand on such a cold (-40) night. I am so proud of everyone who attended. (I'm also proud of everyone who wanted to attend but couldn't because the caucus system only works for those of us who are available for the evening!)
I give those volunteers my sincere thanks for handling the situation as well as they could!
On Democracy
Posted on March 31 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A few differences between the fishing and mining industries to keep in mind when weighing our priorities:
Fisheries--People eat fish as a great source of nutrition. No, we aren't directly feeding salmon to the most undernourished humans, but Alaskan fisheries do add significantly to the world food supply.
Mining--People use gold for jewelry and other non-essential luxury items. (Yes a small amount is used for scientific purposes such as astronauts' helmets).
Fisheries--A RENEWABLE resource we CAN manage sustainably so that it provides food, jobs and revenue in perpetuity.
Mining--A NON-renewable resource that we can't sustain in perpetuity (once the ore is gone, so are the jobs and revenue, creating damaging ripple effects in our larger economy).
Some other thoughts:
The price of gold is quite high right now, but by the time Pebble opens (hopefully never), it probably won't be that high.
The US Mine Safety and Health Agency is about as corrupt as any agency under the Bush administration, so it's doubtful they'll have the interest or ability to do adequate oversight.
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_8757834 for some info.
Many Alaskans, indeed many Americans, like to talk about jobs for the sake of having more jobs available. I'm fine with providing more jobs, but we have the responsibility to ourselves and future generations to be as wise (truly conservative, actually) as we possibly can about development and sustainability. We could put people to work soon on Pebble Mine, but I for one will have no tolerance for the inevitable whining for replacement jobs when the mine is finished (that's life with non-renewable resources!).
Consider that some jobs are beneficial to the larger economy, while other jobs either add little or become a drag on the economy. If we put more people in prison, we could "provide more jobs" in the prison industry. But would that make us a better, smarter, wealthier society or economy?
Finally, I am most strongly opposed to the Pebble Mine proposal because it is either directly or potentially incompatible with too many other legitimate, established industries and resource uses, including commercial fishing, fresh and salt water sport fishing, tourism, subsistence living, and the value, tangible and intangible, of pristine wilderness.
On Pebble Mine
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on May 15 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point, Joy--Anchorage wins again. The benefits of this plan disproportionally benefit Anchorage, the region that has suffered the least pain. Still I like this plan as a starting point, and hope it's only improved through a special session, as legislators from everywhere-but-Anchorage tweak it toward true fairness.
We Alaskans are so wrapped in this love/hate relationship with energy costs. If oil prices were low, we'd have no need for this whole discussion, but we'd be having a different discussion about how to pay for very basic government services. We probably can't do much to help ourselves in regard to transportation fuel costs--they are set by the vehicles we buy and use and larger world oil markets. But we could do much more for heating and power supplies in our homes and businesses. Take advantage of the great deal Fred Meyer has on low-energy bulbs this week. Push for some of this surplus to fund more renewable, clean energy projects. Push for more of this surplus to invest in greater efficiency.
On Alaska proposes $1.2 billion program to help offset energy costs