The Alaska Federation of Native Annual Convention is this week. Subsistence returns as a major issue for AFN this year. Alaska Native Corporation’s 8a government contracting also is a topic in this convention.
Subsistence
For those who aren’t informed, Federal Subsistence Laws require a rural preference for the subsisting of fish and wildlife. The State of Alaska has contended against this preference without regard or respect for traditional ways of living.
There are several arguments floating around about what should be done. Some want an overhaul of the Federal Subsistence Board. In another region, locals want more say when it comes time to set the rules. AFN President Julie Kitka says that the system is broken and people are tired of it. Alaska Outdoor Council Executive Director Rod Arno says that all of the fish and wildlife are owned by the State as a public resource and are for common use.
Historically there is little evidence that simply changing board members or asking for more local control is going to do anything to bring subsistence issues to a meaningful resolution. It will only escalate conflicts and controversy until one side or the other declares a major victory. In this day and age, the state of the economy, and the cost of living in rural Alaska, I believe that the rural subsistence priority will soon become a reality that is a long overdue.
Why will it happen? I’ll tell you why, because the state can no longer maintain face while the rural story is being told and made public as time goes on. Rural subsistence users are being cited by law enforcement for violations over rules that should never have been set, and set by someone living hundreds of miles away. Even state legislator Albert Kookesh got cited for over fishing in Angoon, which seems to be a perceived violation.
What nobody proposes, either from lack of ideas or leadership, is that the tribes in rural areas should be the ones setting the rules, within reason of course, and the ones issuing the hunting and fishing permits which you must currently purchase from the State of Alaska. A logical resolution to the subsistence issue would be a totally new process with the tribal governments having the final say in setting the regulations. The State and Federal governments, with their biologists and boards would obviously make their educated recommendations. When a user is found by a state trooper to be in violation, they would forward the citation to the nearest tribal government court. Since there are many tribes with members hunting and fishing overlapping areas, the tribes may have to form regional consortiums to deal with the violations. It is doubtful that non-tribal members would approve of such a deal yet alone consider it.
Politically though, the State of AK can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the problems it creates for itself by playing favoritism with different fish and wildlife user groups. If an urban user or industry user could afford to fly out, boat out, charter, etc while a villager can barely afford to hunt and fish, they can certainly afford to cut back their operations or go to the nearest supermarket. Since there has been a very public economic and social crisis in western Alaska this past winter and who know what will happen this winter. When hunger and the ills of bad fisheries management practices coincide into a situation where the governor pays a visit to places no governor dared ventured before, the rural voices are going to be heard. Urban and industry users are going to have a hard time arguing that their wants and needs be met and considered equally.
8a Business
This past July, Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill opened in inquiry into Alaska Native Corporations 8a government contracting businesses. She wants to know if the ANC’s have “participated in a giant loophole to competitiveness.” McCaskill said, “These are no longer small companies that are trying to find their way and grow in order to help the Alaska Native population. I think this is about a program that began as an effort to allow the Alaska Native corporations to participate in federal contracting and just somehow has grown bigger than anyone probably envisioned."
This is from statements she made in July. She got one thing right, and that is that these are no longer small companies, but they are trying to find their way and grow ever larger in order to help the Alaska Native population. If she thinks that ANC’s have gotten big enough, she is very wrong. I doubt that this program is bigger than anyone probably envisioned. It’s only the beginning of what’s been envisioned for the ANC’s. The critics may contend that the program has created billion dollar businesses, but the corporations can, will, and must become multi-billion dollar businesses.
To cite a few numbers, other 8a businesses are capped at $5.5 million dollars, so a corporation like Doyon, Limited with over 17,500 shareholders would have to procure a little over $96 billion worth of federal contracts to even match a contractor owned by a single person. Think about that, $96 billion dollars. So, to the Small Business Administration, that’s the amount of money that if each native shareholder owned their own business would have to be contracted with. Compare that dollar amount to what has actually been contracted, $24 billion in the last 8 years. Now consider that there are over 120,000 Alaska Natives living in Alaska and multiply that by $5.5 million and you get $660 billion dollars. So until that amount has been contracted out, I see no reason to reform this program and I see every reason to expand it. Like I said, it is only the beginning of this successful program.
If reform in this area of federal contracting is going to happen, it is going to happen on the ANC’s side. They could cap the contracting per shareholder as the numbers clearly demonstrate the current program as designed is inadequate. But I suggest a broad solution on the order of ANCSA 7i revenue sharing. This revenue sharing is 70% of the profits generated from natural resources by the regional corporations must be distributed to the 7i fund, which is then distributed to the corporations and village corporations. The amount distributed is determined by the number of shareholders and other variables, but the outcome is meant to boost the other corporations that have not had much success or do not have access to natural resources. I would propose a revenue sharing program not at 70% but maybe 40-50%, as this could be coined a ‘national’ resource. After all, it is a program meant to benefit natives as a whole, but the results are rather disproportionate in my opinion.
The critics of the program claim that it’s created a few large businesses with varying contributions to the shareholders, so with a revenue sharing agreement, that argument goes out the door. Another reason to do revenue sharing is that the village corporations would be contributor rather than being a draw on the 7i fund. The formula for revenue sharing would be a little complicated, but I see long term benefits for everyone involved to do it.
All said, Alaska Natives, their businesses and issues have a long ways to go to get to a level playing field in the modern world.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Humanitarian Roads?
With the hunger versus heat crisis that happened in Western Alaska this winter, I wonder how serious our leaders are when it comes to building up a wide array of transportation infrastructure in rural Alaska. I personally believe that now is the time to start building a network of gravel roads stretched across Alaska.
There is the proposed Yukon River Highway, but I believe that the tribes should take it up as a sovereign issue. I mean that there shouldn't be any new bridges over the Yukon at Tanana and over the Koyukuk River at Koyukuk to constrict runaway development in this vast area. Yet build a paved highway running from Kaltag to Nome.
If you look at my other site http://accessparty.com you could find my rural roads page and other pages on the site to really determine your own thoughts about how I justify building a network of new roads to many villages.
Further advancing my ideas is the humanitarian crisis that occured a short time ago. That alone should in all context of the issue be reason enough to launch a new massive humanitarian effort to give a new mode of transportation to rural Alaskans that is way behind America and urban Alaska.
The military launched a massive effort with their broad resources in building the Alaska-Canadian Highway in order to move supplies to military bases in Alaska. It is in this same type of context, but as a humanitarian effort not for war, that I argue that the State, Federal and Tribal governments to coordinate such an ambitious project. The Tribes have considerable human resources just as the military did when they built the Alcan Highway.
We need our own Rural Alaska 'Recovery and Reinvestment Act'. Think of State and Federal savings when spending tax dollars on Rural areas. Think of reversing the outmigration of the villages. Think of bringing educated natives home. Think of tourists. Think of a new Alaska where we can all be called equal regardless of where we live. Think of your fellow Alaskans and your fellow Americans.
There is the proposed Yukon River Highway, but I believe that the tribes should take it up as a sovereign issue. I mean that there shouldn't be any new bridges over the Yukon at Tanana and over the Koyukuk River at Koyukuk to constrict runaway development in this vast area. Yet build a paved highway running from Kaltag to Nome.
If you look at my other site http://accessparty.com you could find my rural roads page and other pages on the site to really determine your own thoughts about how I justify building a network of new roads to many villages.
Further advancing my ideas is the humanitarian crisis that occured a short time ago. That alone should in all context of the issue be reason enough to launch a new massive humanitarian effort to give a new mode of transportation to rural Alaskans that is way behind America and urban Alaska.
The military launched a massive effort with their broad resources in building the Alaska-Canadian Highway in order to move supplies to military bases in Alaska. It is in this same type of context, but as a humanitarian effort not for war, that I argue that the State, Federal and Tribal governments to coordinate such an ambitious project. The Tribes have considerable human resources just as the military did when they built the Alcan Highway.
We need our own Rural Alaska 'Recovery and Reinvestment Act'. Think of State and Federal savings when spending tax dollars on Rural areas. Think of reversing the outmigration of the villages. Think of bringing educated natives home. Think of tourists. Think of a new Alaska where we can all be called equal regardless of where we live. Think of your fellow Alaskans and your fellow Americans.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Capitol Move
Here is a part of the Associated Press article printed in ADN today.
JUNEAU -- A new report about an old issue says moving the state capital from Juneau would devastate the economy in the region.
Jim Calvin, lead researcher for the Juneau-based McDowell Group, said if the capital moved Juneau would lose between a quarter and a third of its economy.
The report was paid for by the Alaska Committee, a group dedicated to keeping Alaska's capital in Juneau. McDowell Group researchers used state data on the work force and location of state government jobs.
If the capital was moved, total employment losses could be between 4,358 and 5,810 jobs, the report said. It estimated Juneau would lose about 29 percent of its 30,000-plus residents.
The relative importance of state government to Juneau's economy has dropped somewhat since a similar study in 1992, Calvin said. That's because tourism has grown. Cruise visitors, for example, doubled to about 1 million a season in the past decade.
The report is openly one-sided in their argument for keeping our colonial capitol. With comments arguing for a capitol move or against. The comments bring up valid points, such as the larger issues of dealing with energy and building up a statewide surface transportation system. Others bring up newer arguments for moving the capitol, such as access and the special interests that can afford to lobby in such an isolated location.
There were a few comments about modern communications being a way to contact your representatives, but there is nothing more effective than getting a one-on-one sit down with your elected official, which is hard and expensive to do with them being in Juneau. I'm sure they enjoy their privacy, but they are public officials. Alaska needs to evolve and progress if we are to make it in an increasingly global economy. I say to move the capitol to Anchorage and that is my firm opinion.
JUNEAU -- A new report about an old issue says moving the state capital from Juneau would devastate the economy in the region.
Jim Calvin, lead researcher for the Juneau-based McDowell Group, said if the capital moved Juneau would lose between a quarter and a third of its economy.
The report was paid for by the Alaska Committee, a group dedicated to keeping Alaska's capital in Juneau. McDowell Group researchers used state data on the work force and location of state government jobs.
If the capital was moved, total employment losses could be between 4,358 and 5,810 jobs, the report said. It estimated Juneau would lose about 29 percent of its 30,000-plus residents.
The relative importance of state government to Juneau's economy has dropped somewhat since a similar study in 1992, Calvin said. That's because tourism has grown. Cruise visitors, for example, doubled to about 1 million a season in the past decade.
The report is openly one-sided in their argument for keeping our colonial capitol. With comments arguing for a capitol move or against. The comments bring up valid points, such as the larger issues of dealing with energy and building up a statewide surface transportation system. Others bring up newer arguments for moving the capitol, such as access and the special interests that can afford to lobby in such an isolated location.
There were a few comments about modern communications being a way to contact your representatives, but there is nothing more effective than getting a one-on-one sit down with your elected official, which is hard and expensive to do with them being in Juneau. I'm sure they enjoy their privacy, but they are public officials. Alaska needs to evolve and progress if we are to make it in an increasingly global economy. I say to move the capitol to Anchorage and that is my firm opinion.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Erosion Report
I was surprised to find the erosion report sitting in obscurity in The Village Rural Blog on ADN.com, considering that this is a top issue in Rural Alaska. Kyle Hopkins, editor of The Village even states it in his short article. He says, "Rural issues don’t get much bigger than this, with villages in danger of falling in the ocean, but few easy answers because relocation projects come with massive price tags."
What a farce this blog is. I see it as an attempt to minimize and control the efforts rural Alaskans make to advocate for the issues. In the opening statement Kyle writes, "The Village is a Daily News blog about life and politics in rural Alaska." I have written him about my ideas, my blog and website with no response.
The report is 65 pages in length with some pages left blank. The report states that 178 communities were found to have reported erosion problems. ADN neglects this report considerably, only stating that 26 communities need some kind of 'immediate action'. While the report states that the Corps designated 26 communities "Priority Action Communities" - indicating that they should be considered for immediate action by either initiating an evaluation of potential solutions or continuing with ongoing efforts to manage erosion. Furthermore, stating that 69 additional communities should be considered "Monitor Conditions Communities".
Anchorage Daily News is grossly under-reporting this significant report that is vital to efforts by rural and Native organizations to seek assistance, such as where the report states under Table ES-1 that," The erosion issues in these communities warrant immediate and substantial Federal, State, or other intervention." I find the wording of this to be of importance. IMMEDIATE and SUBSTANTIAL intervention.
I have written news organizations and politicians alike on the issue of erosion. In a Letter to the Editor, I wrote that using surplus oil revenue, the State should fully fund the relocation of three PAC communities. Considering that there is no longer a surplus generating revenue, it would be politically impossible for a politician to press for a spending bill for relocation of Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref.
In other related news, ADN and Fairbanks Newsminer reported that the National Weather Service Hydrologist Larry Rundquist says snowfall and the thickness of frozen ice are almost at historical averages in much of the state. This only further complicates the problem of erosion along river communities. Many individuals and businesses have reported amongst themselves purchasing flood insurance. Only another bill in Rural Alaska on top of the already horrendous cost of living out here.
The erosion problems in these PAC communities are threatening the viability of these communities. Yet I believe that the wait-and-see approach a majority of the Legislatures and Representatives are taking is simply a let-them-evacuate-when-the-time-comes and then set them up in a urban high school gymnasium until they can get them North Slope jobs and fully assimilate them into modern society. I hope and pray that this report is taken into serious consideration. Otherwise, rural Alaska may have to start talking about creating a separate state, flush with oil and gas revenues that can finance the gross neglect from the Urban dominated politics of the past.
What a farce this blog is. I see it as an attempt to minimize and control the efforts rural Alaskans make to advocate for the issues. In the opening statement Kyle writes, "The Village is a Daily News blog about life and politics in rural Alaska." I have written him about my ideas, my blog and website with no response.
The report is 65 pages in length with some pages left blank. The report states that 178 communities were found to have reported erosion problems. ADN neglects this report considerably, only stating that 26 communities need some kind of 'immediate action'. While the report states that the Corps designated 26 communities "Priority Action Communities" - indicating that they should be considered for immediate action by either initiating an evaluation of potential solutions or continuing with ongoing efforts to manage erosion. Furthermore, stating that 69 additional communities should be considered "Monitor Conditions Communities".
Anchorage Daily News is grossly under-reporting this significant report that is vital to efforts by rural and Native organizations to seek assistance, such as where the report states under Table ES-1 that," The erosion issues in these communities warrant immediate and substantial Federal, State, or other intervention." I find the wording of this to be of importance. IMMEDIATE and SUBSTANTIAL intervention.
I have written news organizations and politicians alike on the issue of erosion. In a Letter to the Editor, I wrote that using surplus oil revenue, the State should fully fund the relocation of three PAC communities. Considering that there is no longer a surplus generating revenue, it would be politically impossible for a politician to press for a spending bill for relocation of Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref.
In other related news, ADN and Fairbanks Newsminer reported that the National Weather Service Hydrologist Larry Rundquist says snowfall and the thickness of frozen ice are almost at historical averages in much of the state. This only further complicates the problem of erosion along river communities. Many individuals and businesses have reported amongst themselves purchasing flood insurance. Only another bill in Rural Alaska on top of the already horrendous cost of living out here.
The erosion problems in these PAC communities are threatening the viability of these communities. Yet I believe that the wait-and-see approach a majority of the Legislatures and Representatives are taking is simply a let-them-evacuate-when-the-time-comes and then set them up in a urban high school gymnasium until they can get them North Slope jobs and fully assimilate them into modern society. I hope and pray that this report is taken into serious consideration. Otherwise, rural Alaska may have to start talking about creating a separate state, flush with oil and gas revenues that can finance the gross neglect from the Urban dominated politics of the past.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Reasonable Assistance
Since Governor Sarah Palin was selected by Senator John McCain to be his running mate a lot has happened with the discussion about the future of rural Alaska.
The price of heating fuel has taken a tremendous toll on a number of communities on the lower Yukon River. In 2005 the price was around $5/gallon in these communities, this year it is at $8/gallon. That is a 62% increase in four years! Even $5/gallon was 25% or higher than urban residents spent.
Substantial negative effects on residents that invested in fishing has increased the burden. The price hike in the expense of fuel and the poor catch made fishing near uneconomical. These factors may eventually cause the decline of Native cultures that can be felt at a more pronounced rate by those who value their native heritages and traditions. I say 'those who value', because I have seen some who only call themselves native when it suits them. I have even heard some natives say that they don't consider themselves native because they don't live the life. That's honesty.
Though I have launched heavy criticism through several published letters, I support Sarah Palin as a native and a republican. I may catch flak for either supporting or criticizing the woman for her appointments or lack of vision or supporting her legitimate concern for an expanding government that may be unsustainable.
Governor Palin recently visited some western villages to deliver food and other assistance to these proud and unique people. I am glad that she seen a part of Alaska that she's never seen before. Sad that she had to do it after she seen more of the lower 48 than her own state. It is worthwhile to commend her on her efforts, yet at the same time, she lacks vision. I feel it my obligation as a free thinker to both give her respect where respect is due and also to provide constructive criticism.
I hear no new ideas from neither the natives, the non-natives, the republicans, the democrats, or anyone launching criticism or support for or against our governor. In this two party system that we've got, we're no longer a democracy but just plain democrazy. I read the news quite often and it's simply republican base conservatives voices versus the democrat socialist liberal dictate the news media voices. So much for change.
Governor Sarah Palin mentioned during her visit to western Alaska that the youth should seek jobs on the North Slope so they could contribute to their villages. Great, it is always good to encourage people to seek rewarding work. Not so great when there is an inherent if not ignorant or absent in understanding the cultures and family connectivity in these communities.
Here is what I recommend to Sarah do as governor, or any Senator willing to take the mantle of leadership and propose a way for village residents to work on the slope. What I am talking of is proposing a tax deduction for oil companies and their contractors to pay current workers as well as new workers airfare to their hometown. Such a tax policy for the 10,000 people in the region she spoke of without a job would cost the state $40 million per year depending on airfare. Yet the wages earned by those 10,000 people would approach $360+ million per year. Vastly eclipsing the amount spent on government assistance to these same people.
Such a tax policy would be constructive in that it saves wages earned for providing for families in an inherently expensive environment. It may prove unpopular for urban residents who would see it as more government assistance to a group more often seen as recipients rather than contributors. I believe that the monthly cost of airfare easily leverages over the cost of providing broad government assistance to these same people. While providing greater opportunity for isolated communities, the state could decrease its assistance expenditures and at the same time bring hope for prosperity and cultural renewal for many Alaskans. Who knows, maybe this could even reverse the out-migration trend and help foster sustainable communities.
The price of heating fuel has taken a tremendous toll on a number of communities on the lower Yukon River. In 2005 the price was around $5/gallon in these communities, this year it is at $8/gallon. That is a 62% increase in four years! Even $5/gallon was 25% or higher than urban residents spent.
Substantial negative effects on residents that invested in fishing has increased the burden. The price hike in the expense of fuel and the poor catch made fishing near uneconomical. These factors may eventually cause the decline of Native cultures that can be felt at a more pronounced rate by those who value their native heritages and traditions. I say 'those who value', because I have seen some who only call themselves native when it suits them. I have even heard some natives say that they don't consider themselves native because they don't live the life. That's honesty.
Though I have launched heavy criticism through several published letters, I support Sarah Palin as a native and a republican. I may catch flak for either supporting or criticizing the woman for her appointments or lack of vision or supporting her legitimate concern for an expanding government that may be unsustainable.
Governor Palin recently visited some western villages to deliver food and other assistance to these proud and unique people. I am glad that she seen a part of Alaska that she's never seen before. Sad that she had to do it after she seen more of the lower 48 than her own state. It is worthwhile to commend her on her efforts, yet at the same time, she lacks vision. I feel it my obligation as a free thinker to both give her respect where respect is due and also to provide constructive criticism.
I hear no new ideas from neither the natives, the non-natives, the republicans, the democrats, or anyone launching criticism or support for or against our governor. In this two party system that we've got, we're no longer a democracy but just plain democrazy. I read the news quite often and it's simply republican base conservatives voices versus the democrat socialist liberal dictate the news media voices. So much for change.
Governor Sarah Palin mentioned during her visit to western Alaska that the youth should seek jobs on the North Slope so they could contribute to their villages. Great, it is always good to encourage people to seek rewarding work. Not so great when there is an inherent if not ignorant or absent in understanding the cultures and family connectivity in these communities.
Here is what I recommend to Sarah do as governor, or any Senator willing to take the mantle of leadership and propose a way for village residents to work on the slope. What I am talking of is proposing a tax deduction for oil companies and their contractors to pay current workers as well as new workers airfare to their hometown. Such a tax policy for the 10,000 people in the region she spoke of without a job would cost the state $40 million per year depending on airfare. Yet the wages earned by those 10,000 people would approach $360+ million per year. Vastly eclipsing the amount spent on government assistance to these same people.
Such a tax policy would be constructive in that it saves wages earned for providing for families in an inherently expensive environment. It may prove unpopular for urban residents who would see it as more government assistance to a group more often seen as recipients rather than contributors. I believe that the monthly cost of airfare easily leverages over the cost of providing broad government assistance to these same people. While providing greater opportunity for isolated communities, the state could decrease its assistance expenditures and at the same time bring hope for prosperity and cultural renewal for many Alaskans. Who knows, maybe this could even reverse the out-migration trend and help foster sustainable communities.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Making Progress
Prudhoe is shutting down, BP executives are putting on sad faces, and politicians are wagging their tails at this. They should have tails anyway, they are all just a bunch of wolves trying to feast on rural oil. The three big oil companies stand to lose out on a lot of money that wasn't really theirs in the first place anyway. The State of Alaska likely will have to dip their relentless hands into the Constitutional Budget Reserve, due to the loss of revenue from oil which wasn't theirs in the first place. Chances are rural Alaska which deserves to be developed will again bear the brunt of the burden. Gas prices will rise ten cents in the city and fifty cents in the villages. It's not all bad... the oil still sits in Rural Alaska. So why shouldn't the State as well as the oil companies give to rural communities while they continually write laws concerning rural lands (any law concerning rural Alaska, written by an urban-based politician, in my opinion, is likely to be ridiculous stupid irrational and not logical in any sense), and pump oil from a land foreign as well as a great distance away just to fund a legalized colonial state. This is the first and only time that I will write on this, because maybe you people do not know what happened in recent history of Alaska. The United Nations Declaration on Decolonization required that the United States educate indiginous Alaska on their right to build a new nation! Instead, the colonizers of Alaska (many of whom were racist and prejudicial against natives) decided to legalize their plundering of native land by promoting statehood into the United States of America. Let it be known that few natives could vote, or even knew what was going on at the time. Most of them just wanted to fish, hunt, and survive. Today we are, I am sad to say, a colonized people. We are an assimilated people. We are still yet an oppressed people. Some of this is what I call self-oppression. In rural Alaska, many natives oppress themselves by drugs and alcohol. They hold themselves back by a disease brought on to them by the US military, whom 100 years ago when it was against the law to sell alcohol to natives, gladly commited chemical warfare on a foreign land. Many of these natives who were sold alcohol died first deaths in a disease that has ravaged Alaska for generations brought on by a government who "needed" free range in Alaska.
Like I said, it's not all bad... we are making progress. The honey bucket in many communities are now history. Starvation is as history as history can be. A hundred plus years ago, many natives starved because they couldn't follow the food. When I read books written or told by elderly natives or natives whom has already passed, I am inspired by their will to survive and thrive. This was their whole way of thinking, survival. They didn't think about Ford, Toyota, light bulbs, Polaris, Yamaha, oil, gold, etc. They thought about keeping warm and having sufficient food. They took care of each other, and when necessary, they even allowed the elderly under starvation a dying wish of death! Today I know more than the average man my age, perhaps more than most, the history, the changes, the hardships, the progression, and the joys of Alaska. It is my homeland. Who would I be, if I didn't want to know it intimately, and wanted to make it better? I will be honest, I don't have a great history regarding my personal life. I don't even have a car, but I do enjoy the long walks home that I am sure my ancestors did long ago. I am a Koyukon Athabascan, and I am proud to know where I come from. They are a hard working people, yet admittingly getting lazy in modern life, with loving communities, all desiring a better future. You may say it would be a waste to build a vast new network of roads, but I call it a vision. A vision for my homeland that will happen.
Like I said, it's not all bad... we are making progress. The honey bucket in many communities are now history. Starvation is as history as history can be. A hundred plus years ago, many natives starved because they couldn't follow the food. When I read books written or told by elderly natives or natives whom has already passed, I am inspired by their will to survive and thrive. This was their whole way of thinking, survival. They didn't think about Ford, Toyota, light bulbs, Polaris, Yamaha, oil, gold, etc. They thought about keeping warm and having sufficient food. They took care of each other, and when necessary, they even allowed the elderly under starvation a dying wish of death! Today I know more than the average man my age, perhaps more than most, the history, the changes, the hardships, the progression, and the joys of Alaska. It is my homeland. Who would I be, if I didn't want to know it intimately, and wanted to make it better? I will be honest, I don't have a great history regarding my personal life. I don't even have a car, but I do enjoy the long walks home that I am sure my ancestors did long ago. I am a Koyukon Athabascan, and I am proud to know where I come from. They are a hard working people, yet admittingly getting lazy in modern life, with loving communities, all desiring a better future. You may say it would be a waste to build a vast new network of roads, but I call it a vision. A vision for my homeland that will happen.
Rural Representation
The newspaper has no choice but to print the truth when it comes to financial disclosures of the Big Oil Companies lobbying expenses. Nearly $2 million this year so far, they far outspend any native organization ever can, or any rural group for that matter. Quoting the paper - "corporate cash threatens to overpower the voices of ordinary citizens." I've said it before and I will say it again, urban legislators hold sway regarding law and funding in Alaska. Who but Big Oil can afford to send lobbyists to Juneau? Rural legislators obviously have a say, but the population growth in urban Alaska is far outpacing rural districts. One word: unfair. Some decades ago my great uncle, a legislator, said, "some of you think that when you are on Lake Otis, you are in the wilderness!" There are some legislators serving today that have no idea what life is like in rural Alaska and they should, by law, learn about the history and current ways in rural Alaska. This way, they will understand that rural Alaska deserves the same perks oil money has been providing the cities. After all, the oil isn't coming from underneath Sullivan Arena, nor is it coming from the Matsu-Valley, which is currently enjoying massive tax-free economic expansion. Some day, this economic expansion the State and Federal governments are providing services for, will need to be taxed. Rural Alaska deserves the same economic opportunity in the form of roads, adequately funded schools, tourism promotion, etc. Without much of the influx of funding I am telling you about, many of the villages in rural Alaska will face emigration on a scale which would cause a collapse in State and Federal services. Believe me, this emigration is already happening today. Young adults as well as families with children in their teens and older are already moving from their villages and establishing themselves in the cities. Without the roads I wish to be built, the trend will continue. All because the air infrastructure is prohibitively expensive for many to live decently in rural towns. Tourism opportunities are limited by this as well. Costs to maintain and run existing infrastructure, much of which has been built just recently, will rise to the point of being unsustainable. You might be thinking, NO WAY! Trust me, if you look the world over, roads are the way of economies. Forget oil, forget gas, forget old ways of thinking. Roads can support $100-200 trips carrying 2, 5, 10 people halfway across the state, while the rising cost of air travel would cost those same (5) people a thousand or more. A few people have told me that the villages are going to go through very rough times if something is not done soon about transportation infrastructure in rural Alaska. Some villages are already going through rough times, but this is only the beginning. Oil prices are at $75, gas in the city at $3 , and analysts/experts are saying that the current prices are here to stay. Not a few years ago, the price of oil was under $40, the State unable to pay bills without drawing on the Constitutional Budget Reserve. Today the state is enjoying a surplus, but the lawmakers main focus isn't exactly "big picture" thinking. Who is going to pay for urban expansion services when rural oil runs out?
Open Alaskan Racism
Anchorage Daily News printed a letter today from an individual bashing the policies created to ensure Native participation in the economy. He says, "we have Alaskan Native apartheid with relief from law, special status." It may be true that we are a distinct society with a few perks. We were exploited, oppressed, compensated, and given special status. Let it be known that if ANCSA were not made law, our leaders likely would have created a new nation, reaping all the benefits from the oil sitting underneath the Arctic Slope. I wish this would have happened. Today we have people like this man, who calls himself Alaskan, bashing natives who have been here longer than he has. He is also benefiting from the historical exploitation of our land. One of the last things he says in his letter is, "just send me the check", referring to his PFD. If our leaders had created a new nation, we would have more jobs for natives, and settlers would no longer be referred to as settlers, but immigrants looking for opportunity, just as those who are moving into the lower 48 from Mexico are. This is not the case, so I cannot hope for a change of attitude, but point out that many who move to Alaska are already above the poverty line and are looking for a chance at a good retirement. They don't see that natives don't look for retirement, though some do, they look for progress as a whole. Natives are a distinct society and will always be a distinct society. If the person who wrote that letter to ADN could read this, I have something to say to you: shut up and accept it, we're here to stay, but you may leave if you wish, or after you have found your opportunity.
This is racism at it's deepest level. Proof that non-native settlers are coming to Alaska looking for opportunity and are outraged at the fact that because we were here first (something recognized across the world and the UN) we are deserving of indiginous rights. He claims that we are in a cocoon of welfare, alcohol, and violence. It is true that many natives live on welfare, drink, and beat the crap out of each other. This is called a stereotype. Not all natives live on welfare, drink reprehensibly, and fight. Most natives, I am proud to say, are progressing. It is sad to see such blatant racism printed in a well-known paper. Furthermore, he claims that we have sanitized Native history, and that lies are printed about Natives today. All this is propaganda for a newspaper which seems so glad to print, meanwhile they refuse to print anything regarding this new political party which means to lobby for better RURAL representation and funding.
To those reading: please ignore the propaganda of today's larger society, they want only one thing: money. The oil companies want it. The newspapers want loyal readers.The politicians want offices in history, no matter the cost and no matter if it's bad or good. Access Party is an idea for equal opportunity. Societies' "pendulum" in the center is a dream that cannot be achieved in a world with an uneducated, distorted racial perspective. We should have a law that requires a cultural orientation for those who move and works in Alaska to combat such ingorant racism.
This is racism at it's deepest level. Proof that non-native settlers are coming to Alaska looking for opportunity and are outraged at the fact that because we were here first (something recognized across the world and the UN) we are deserving of indiginous rights. He claims that we are in a cocoon of welfare, alcohol, and violence. It is true that many natives live on welfare, drink, and beat the crap out of each other. This is called a stereotype. Not all natives live on welfare, drink reprehensibly, and fight. Most natives, I am proud to say, are progressing. It is sad to see such blatant racism printed in a well-known paper. Furthermore, he claims that we have sanitized Native history, and that lies are printed about Natives today. All this is propaganda for a newspaper which seems so glad to print, meanwhile they refuse to print anything regarding this new political party which means to lobby for better RURAL representation and funding.
To those reading: please ignore the propaganda of today's larger society, they want only one thing: money. The oil companies want it. The newspapers want loyal readers.The politicians want offices in history, no matter the cost and no matter if it's bad or good. Access Party is an idea for equal opportunity. Societies' "pendulum" in the center is a dream that cannot be achieved in a world with an uneducated, distorted racial perspective. We should have a law that requires a cultural orientation for those who move and works in Alaska to combat such ingorant racism.
Anchorage Native Students / Oil
I'd like to thank Stephen Haycox for publishing his article on racism. 69% of Anchorage non-natives graduate from High School in Anchorage. This is 1% below the national average. 32% of native students in Anchorage graduate from High School. Remember, this is in Anchorage. Statewide the number is 43%, which means Anchorage, after so much economic progress, is failing badly. Not just badly, it's screwed. Like Stephen Haycox says, "It's a scandal". In the article:
Everywhere the messages "You don't have what it takes" or "You can't cut it" or "There's no point, anyway" have a cumulative effect, studies report.
I would also like to thank Carol Comeau for giving some level of support, "we have to do better". Good, but being the Anchorage schools superintendent, this should be her top priority. Should there be little change in the future, I'd remember her as just another mouth, a failure. Sorry Carol, you have a lot of work to do, and I hope you are cut out to do it. Many parents are counting on you.
Alaskan oil: BP profits $2.6 billion. Conoco Philips profits $2.6 billion. Exxon Mobil profits "no comment". But Exxon did report worldwide profits of $36.1 billion.
I'm sure some politicians of past were thinking, "aren't we the owner state?". Statehood set us up for some equality, ANCSA set us up for some equality, oil companies set us up for... what did they set us up for? Oh, some jobs. We had a boom when the pipeline was built, but it's running dry and needs ANWR to fill it back up. But who benefits from ANWR? Who benefits from a gas pipeline? A majority of the benefits, I guarantee you, will go to oil company shareholders. Sure Alaska will benefit by jobs and some revenue to the State. We may or may not recieve some of the gas traveling to the lower 48. But generally, the oil companies are looking for maximum profits, just like any other corporation.
We need to return to being the owner state. Hold out on ANWR. Hold out on the gasline. Maybe we could build a gasline to Fairbanks and Anchorage and other places as needed/economical, and write-off the cost of construction, but charge for the cost of maintenance and transport. Turn some of the gas into propane, like Wally Hickel suggested and ship it to disadvantaged communities. This would mean ownership of the gas for Alaska for a lot longer than the lower 48, who would suck it dry as fast as the pipe would allow. It sure wouldn't take a very big/expensive pipe to support a half million plus people. I don't see why it hasn't been done already.
If ANWR were to be opened, the proceeds should go to rural Alaska. ANWR is the domain of caribou and those who hunt them. It is truly a place where, if exploited, controversy would follow. ANWR has the potential to fill the pipeline, but why fill it when only a wealthy few will truly benefit. I can only imagine the fat man/woman sitting poolside outside their mansion thinking "I need ANWR to build myself a castle!" Point well said... NOT. Agree or disagree, I hope that I have (in some way) either entertained you or inspired you to want more for Alaska.
Everywhere the messages "You don't have what it takes" or "You can't cut it" or "There's no point, anyway" have a cumulative effect, studies report.
I would also like to thank Carol Comeau for giving some level of support, "we have to do better". Good, but being the Anchorage schools superintendent, this should be her top priority. Should there be little change in the future, I'd remember her as just another mouth, a failure. Sorry Carol, you have a lot of work to do, and I hope you are cut out to do it. Many parents are counting on you.
Alaskan oil: BP profits $2.6 billion. Conoco Philips profits $2.6 billion. Exxon Mobil profits "no comment". But Exxon did report worldwide profits of $36.1 billion.
I'm sure some politicians of past were thinking, "aren't we the owner state?". Statehood set us up for some equality, ANCSA set us up for some equality, oil companies set us up for... what did they set us up for? Oh, some jobs. We had a boom when the pipeline was built, but it's running dry and needs ANWR to fill it back up. But who benefits from ANWR? Who benefits from a gas pipeline? A majority of the benefits, I guarantee you, will go to oil company shareholders. Sure Alaska will benefit by jobs and some revenue to the State. We may or may not recieve some of the gas traveling to the lower 48. But generally, the oil companies are looking for maximum profits, just like any other corporation.
We need to return to being the owner state. Hold out on ANWR. Hold out on the gasline. Maybe we could build a gasline to Fairbanks and Anchorage and other places as needed/economical, and write-off the cost of construction, but charge for the cost of maintenance and transport. Turn some of the gas into propane, like Wally Hickel suggested and ship it to disadvantaged communities. This would mean ownership of the gas for Alaska for a lot longer than the lower 48, who would suck it dry as fast as the pipe would allow. It sure wouldn't take a very big/expensive pipe to support a half million plus people. I don't see why it hasn't been done already.
If ANWR were to be opened, the proceeds should go to rural Alaska. ANWR is the domain of caribou and those who hunt them. It is truly a place where, if exploited, controversy would follow. ANWR has the potential to fill the pipeline, but why fill it when only a wealthy few will truly benefit. I can only imagine the fat man/woman sitting poolside outside their mansion thinking "I need ANWR to build myself a castle!" Point well said... NOT. Agree or disagree, I hope that I have (in some way) either entertained you or inspired you to want more for Alaska.
Surface Transportation Argument
If you have not read the article on the new multi-billion dollar train route from China to Tibet, you should. Tibet has no oil. Tibetans are poor. Many Tibetans have opposed the railway. They think the Han Chinese are going to flood the Chinese controlled region. This has largely happened with Alaska, but only with natural resources has the State/Federal governments had the motive. There are not many natural resources left in Alaska that the state or federal governments wishes to exploit by building roads/highways to them. Had explorers not found oil up in the north slope, would there be a highway leading there? NO. Chinese are doing much exploiting of their own lands, but this railway? They say it's going to lift the 2.8 million people out of isolation. TRUE. They say that no culture can develop and thrive in a closed environment. TRUE. One thing they are missing is a similar program as Alaska has, ANCSA for Tibetan Buddhists, whom the Chinese government tolerates and exempts from their system of religion/culture-control. Many Tibetans are poor, like Alaskan Natives. Like many Alaskan Native communities, they have been isolated from the outside world (prohibitive transportation costs: $600 airfare vs. $59 train ticket). Is this sounding like a familiar argument? It should. The state should start thinking like the Chinese communists in providing "access" for their people's lands. Not to say that Alaska should become communist or socialist, but in this, I say the Chinese are wise. The Tibetans may not prosper and thrive as they wish, but they will certainly not be left out and in the cold (they are in the mountains where it gets cold, just like Alaska!). I am certainly having a laugh at the moment.
Last week it cost $180 to fly from my hometown to Fairbanks. It's much farther to Seattle but the cost is the same! Sure, there are bigger planes, more passengers, and a much bigger economy. So why build cheap roads, that can support personal vehicles at the least. If found economical, commercial operations can operate, but on a limited level (small buses, small cargo trucks, snowmachine caravans for tourism, etc.). The argument is for rural residents to utilize a cheap road to travel as they wish, not for commercial prospects, yet support tourism without inviting business and corporations to further colonize the land. The idea is to build sustainable communities, support local hiring preferences, and bring the cost of living down considerably. If this proposal/idea/party ever gets hijacked to win votes or further colonize a disadvantaged people, it would be the greatest mistake I have ever made in proposing such a grand project. Yes, even greater than the personal choices of mine. To ensure opportunity for every resident and community by building roads will do much to tear down the urban/rural divide. Sure, drugs and alcohol may become more readily available, but this can be regulated and the consequences of not building are economically far greater.
Last week it cost $180 to fly from my hometown to Fairbanks. It's much farther to Seattle but the cost is the same! Sure, there are bigger planes, more passengers, and a much bigger economy. So why build cheap roads, that can support personal vehicles at the least. If found economical, commercial operations can operate, but on a limited level (small buses, small cargo trucks, snowmachine caravans for tourism, etc.). The argument is for rural residents to utilize a cheap road to travel as they wish, not for commercial prospects, yet support tourism without inviting business and corporations to further colonize the land. The idea is to build sustainable communities, support local hiring preferences, and bring the cost of living down considerably. If this proposal/idea/party ever gets hijacked to win votes or further colonize a disadvantaged people, it would be the greatest mistake I have ever made in proposing such a grand project. Yes, even greater than the personal choices of mine. To ensure opportunity for every resident and community by building roads will do much to tear down the urban/rural divide. Sure, drugs and alcohol may become more readily available, but this can be regulated and the consequences of not building are economically far greater.
8a Native Corporation Program
I am apalled that the Anchorage Daily News are supporting the critics whom are pressing to eliminate/exlude the Native Corporations from the 8a program. Not all Native Corporations are gaining significant ground to benefit their shareholders. This is only the beginning of success, not success itself. The 8a program, in my opinion, was flawed from the beginning. Minority-owned businesses are good, but the 8a program benefited few minorities before ANC’s exception, which benefits a larger amount of minorities. The other 8a businesses participating in the program should lobby for more 8a funding, not the elimination of ANC’s exception. Eliminating contract caps in favor of the Native Corporations was a beneficial step for both the government and the native corporations. It completes the philosophy behind the 8a program and, to be exact, the perfect concession to complete ANCSA outside of ANCSA. I hope that the lawmakers don't backslide on this. They haven't taken away no-bid contracts in Iraq, so why take it away from AK Native Corporations? In my firm opinion, take no-bid contracting out of Iraq first, then we should consider what seems to be the current hot Alaskan topic. We've all heard for the last few years about the lawmakers as well as citizens criticism of funds rolling into Alaska. I have only one thing to say about this: after 50 years of being in the union, it's our turn, it's our time, Alaska is turning into the model for the world. It's only the beginning though, we have a long ways to go, a lot of money to spend, and a lot of fighting to do amongst ourselves.
Old School Politics
Stuff that politicians are going to campaign on: the longevity bonus, state retirement debt, gas pipeline, oil and gas taxes.
Stuff that politicians may not talk about during their campaigns: rural representation fairness, fair distribution of funds with rural communities, connecting rural communities with any type of road, and moving the state capitol.
I am sure that they will argue that the state cannot afford to move the capitol in such a "critical" time while they are "negotiating" for a gas pipeline. I'm sure you have all seen the competing ads between an all-Alaska gasline and the AK-Canada gasline. I just have one little question regarding all this: what will Canada charge for building a gasline through their territories? I haven't done any research on this, but I soon will.
The politicians will certainly not want to connect disadvantaged communities to the road system, which will allow for better "access" to the greater economies. They will certainly not allow for an opportunity to build roads which may bring down the Tribal governments' and Native Corporations' lobbying costs. Like the man I spoke with yesterday said, "the oil companies can afford to send lobbyists to Juneau.
Access Party may just be the best idea I have ever come up with. I have contemplated about writing in favor of an existing party, but they are too narrow minded, inferior minded, and colonial minded. Why keep the capitol in Juneau? (Their secret in my words>>) We have safe haven to conduct business to benefit family, friends and major campaign contributors. We can conduct business behind closed doors without a large population at our doorstep to protest. We don't need to be lectured by anybody, you elected us.
I'm sure this might be a little extreme, but I am positive that you were thinking it too. So why did I say it, because I am not a politician, I have freedom of speech, and I just don't care if you don't agree with me (if you don't agree with me, you probably have political connections in Juneau, which most certainly would benefit you). Let me tell you now so you understand why a lot of people don't vote, the elected have egos bigger than Alaska and they simply do not want to benefit everyone (or they become resigned to not being able to).
I just took a look at http://www.aknativevote.com they say that if all eligible natives were to vote, they would be the largest voting bloc in Alaska. I wonder if I inspired all the natives to vote, would that mean that they could vote in their own governor election after election after election? I hope those reading this will take action.
Stuff that politicians may not talk about during their campaigns: rural representation fairness, fair distribution of funds with rural communities, connecting rural communities with any type of road, and moving the state capitol.
I am sure that they will argue that the state cannot afford to move the capitol in such a "critical" time while they are "negotiating" for a gas pipeline. I'm sure you have all seen the competing ads between an all-Alaska gasline and the AK-Canada gasline. I just have one little question regarding all this: what will Canada charge for building a gasline through their territories? I haven't done any research on this, but I soon will.
The politicians will certainly not want to connect disadvantaged communities to the road system, which will allow for better "access" to the greater economies. They will certainly not allow for an opportunity to build roads which may bring down the Tribal governments' and Native Corporations' lobbying costs. Like the man I spoke with yesterday said, "the oil companies can afford to send lobbyists to Juneau.
Access Party may just be the best idea I have ever come up with. I have contemplated about writing in favor of an existing party, but they are too narrow minded, inferior minded, and colonial minded. Why keep the capitol in Juneau? (Their secret in my words>>) We have safe haven to conduct business to benefit family, friends and major campaign contributors. We can conduct business behind closed doors without a large population at our doorstep to protest. We don't need to be lectured by anybody, you elected us.
I'm sure this might be a little extreme, but I am positive that you were thinking it too. So why did I say it, because I am not a politician, I have freedom of speech, and I just don't care if you don't agree with me (if you don't agree with me, you probably have political connections in Juneau, which most certainly would benefit you). Let me tell you now so you understand why a lot of people don't vote, the elected have egos bigger than Alaska and they simply do not want to benefit everyone (or they become resigned to not being able to).
I just took a look at http://www.aknativevote.com they say that if all eligible natives were to vote, they would be the largest voting bloc in Alaska. I wonder if I inspired all the natives to vote, would that mean that they could vote in their own governor election after election after election? I hope those reading this will take action.
Conversation June 28, 2006
Yesterday, I had my first face-to-face conversation about the idea of forming a new political party and moving the capitol. The person shall be un-named. He told me with striking straighforwardness that it's mainly the oil companies that can afford to fly lobbyists to Juneau and influence the lawmakers. We also discussed road building to rural communities. His point of view is that it is getting way too expensive to live in a rural community, and with another conversation he had with a rural resident who moved to the "road system" said it was just too expensive to live in a rural community. Also very expensive to travel to other communities, which he most certainly enjoyed doing. My take on it is the same, and I also mentioned that a significant number of rural residents have been migrating out of the rural communities and into the cities. I should know, since I have done the same. How can urban leaders and students say that we need to find a way to build sustaining economies in rural Alaska without talking about building roads? This is all talk and no action for too many years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
