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.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
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)
