Friday, September 19, 2025
Home Blog Page 10

Alexander Dolitsky: From whispers in Kiev to shofar blasts in Juneau, it’s been a journey of faith, freedom

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
13
Alexander Dolitsky: From whispers in Kiev to shofar blasts in Juneau, it’s been a journey of faith, freedom

By ALEXANDER DOLITSKY

The freedoms for people clearly outlined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution — speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition — are interconnected and foundational to democratic society, personal dignity, and social progress. They enable individuals to think, express, pray, and live according to their conscience and traditional values without government interference.

In our country, freedom of religion protects individual conscience, which includes both the right to practice a faith and the right to have no faith or protects a person’s innermost beliefs. The First Amendment prevents religious discrimination, protects the right of all people of the U.S. land, regardless of their faith by ensuring that the government cannot establish a religion or force citizens to conform to a particular set of beliefs. It also fosters a diverse society by allowing people to live, speak, and act according to their beliefs peacefully and publicly; religious freedom preserves a diverse and pluralistic society. 

During this summer season, I have been signing my books at the Hearthside Books in the Merchant’s Wharf in downtown Juneau — an engaging activity in meeting diverse tourists from all corners of the world. On one occasion, the relatively young orthodox-looking Jewish tourists from New York approached my table, purchased one title of my books, and during our brief communication, recognizing that I am a Russian-born Jew, offered to perform a blessing for me.

Certainly, why to refuse an offer of the sincere blessing. Indeed. Very quickly two young men displayed necessary items for blessing ceremony, secured two leather boxes (tefillins), one on my forehead just above the hairline, and centered between the eyes (tefillah shel rosh), and the other box on the bicep of my non-dominant left arm (tefillah shel yad). The box on my arm was angled toward the heart, and the strap is wrapped nine times down the arm and around the hand. These Jewish prayers are called tefillin. The practice is meant to fulfill the Torah’s commandment to bind the words of God “upon your hand” and “between your eyes.”

Inside each box are scrolls of parchment inscribed by a scribe with four specific passages from the Torah, which express the core tenets of the Jewish faith: 

  • Exodus 13:1–10: Reminds Jews of the Exodus from Egypt and God’s role in their liberation.
  • Exodus 13:11–16: Highlights the duty to teach Jewish values to future generations.
  • Deuteronomy 6:4–9 (The Shema): Declares God’s unity and commands the love and fear of Him.
  • Deuteronomy 11:13–21: Reiterates the rewards for observing God’s commandments. 

The placement of the tefillin on the arm and head symbolizes the devotion of a person’s intellect, emotions, and actions to serving God.

  • Head tefillin: Corresponds to the mind, focusing one’s intellect and thoughts toward God.
  • Arm tefillin: Placed near the heart, representing the submission of a person’s emotions and actions. 

The act of wrapping tefillin binds a person to their core values and traditions, reminding them of the covenant with God established at Mount Sinai. This practice is considered a mitzvah (commandment) for Jewish men starting at their Bar Mitzvah (age 13). A Bar Mitzvah is a Jewish rite of passage for a boy at age 13, marking his transition to religious adulthood, where he is held accountable for observing Jewish laws (mitzvot) and gains new responsibilities within the community. The ceremony, which can include reciting blessings and reading from the Torah during a synagogue service, is followed by a celebration, symbolizing his “son of the commandment” status.

After I was wrapped in tefillin, a young man pulled out from his pocket a small-size Torah, instructed me to repeat after him and recited the prayers from the Torah. Then he loudly blew Shofar that echoed around the Merchants Wharf Mall.

The Jewish horn used during ceremonies is called a Shofar. It is an ancient, sacred instrument, typically made from a ram’s horn. The Shofar’s sounds are considered a spiritual alarm clock, calling people to reflect, repent, and reawaken their connection to God and Jewish tradition. It recalls biblical events such as the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai and the binding of Isaac. Throughout history, the Shofar was used to announce significant events, signal the start of a jubilee year, and even as a call to arms in battle. 

At the end of the ceremony, the young man asked me if I ever had this experience. I replied that in Juneau I organized a Bat Mitzvah for my daughter in the local synagogue when she was 12 years old, but I never was blessed until now. “Well, this was your Bar Mitzvah,” he acknowledged with a generous smile.

This spontaneous ceremony performed for my benefit by complete strangers from New York in the public place in Juneau brought my thoughts back to Kiev of the former Soviet Union. Being a Jew in the Soviet Union meant navigating systemic discrimination, state-sponsored anti-religious campaigns, and political persecution, particularly under the Stalin regime until the mid-1980s. Jews were labeled “outsiders” with disloyal “cosmopolitan” ties to Israel and faced quotas in education and various professions. While some assimilated Jews lived “normal” lives, religious observance and cultural expression were suppressed and often forbidden by the government. 

The Soviet state exercised anti-religious policies, promoted atheism, leading to the closure of synagogues, the banning of religious teachings, and the suppression of traditional Jewish schools. The state-controlled media often engaged in anti-Semitic propaganda. In short, Jewish cultural and religious life was suppressed under strict policies of discrimination. 

When I turned 13 years old, unexpectedly, my dear aunt Lilya invited me to the restaurant to celebrate my birthday. In fact, it was my first visit to the restaurant.

In the former Soviet Union, privileged individuals dined at a small number of high-end state-run restaurants. These restaurants, favored by the government officials and cultural celebrities, offered a level of cuisine and service unavailable or unaffordable to the public. Access to these exclusive establishments was often gained through connections, special permits, or the ability to pay the exorbitant prices, which could equal a significant portion of an average worker’s monthly wage. 

My aunt helped me to navigate through the menu and ordered appropriate food and beverage items for me. Then she presented to me a birthday gift (a soccer ball), leaned toward me and whispered: “Sasha, son, in a Jewish tradition, today on your 13th birthday, you become an adult.” Her voice was trembling, and tears appeared in the corner of her eyes. “Today is your Bar Mitzvah, a Jewish transition to religious adulthood. Remember this day,” she continued.

As I reminded my daughter during her Bat Mitzvah held in Juneau in 2004, “Elena, in America, we do not whisper our prayers, and we do not hide our faith. If we glow together as a nation and believe in the wisdom of Judeo-Christian values and traditions, our nation will survive and prosper.”

Alexander Dolitsky was born and raised in Kiev in the former Soviet Union. He received an M.A. in history from Kiev Pedagogical Institute, Ukraine in 1976; an M.A. in anthropology and archaeology from Brown University in 1983; and enrolled in the Ph.D. program in anthropology at Bryn Mawr College from 1983 to 1985, where he was also lecturer in the Russian Center. In the USSR, he was a social studies teacher for three years and an archaeologist for five years for the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. In 1978, he settled in the United States. Dolitsky visited Alaska for the first time in 1981, while conducting field research for graduate school at Brown. He then settled first in Sitka in 1985 and then in Juneau in 1986. From 1985 to 1987, he was U.S. Forest Service archaeologist and social scientist. He was an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Alaska Southeast from 1985 to 1999; Social Studies Instructor at the Alyeska Central School, Alaska Department of Education and Yukon-Koyukuk School District from 1988 to 2006; and Director of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center from 1990 to 2022. From 2006 to 2010, Alexander Dolitsky served as a Delegate of the Russian Federation in the United States for the Russian Compatriots program. He has done 30 field studies in various areas of the former Soviet Union (including Siberia), Central Asia, South America, Eastern Europe and the United States (including Alaska). Dolitsky was a lecturer on the World Discoverer, Spirit of Oceanus, and Clipper Odyssey vessels in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic regions. He was a Project Manager for the WWII Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease Memorial, which was erected in Fairbanks in 2006. Dolitsky has published extensively in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. His more recent publications include Fairy Tales and Myths of the Bering Strait Chukchi, Ancient Tales of Kamchatka, Tales and Legends of the Yupik Eskimos of Siberia, Old Russia in Modern America: Living Traditions of the Russian Old Believers in Alaska, Allies in Wartime: The Alaska-Siberia Airway During World War II, Spirit of the Siberian Tiger: Folktales of the Russian Far East, Living Wisdom of the Russian Far East: Tales and Legends from Chukotka and Alaska, and Pipeline to Russia: The Alaska-Siberia Air Route in World War II.

Alexander Dolitsky: When we were allies

Alexander Dolitsky: The West provoked and prolonged the Russia-Ukraine war

Alexander Dolitsky: Why cross-cultural literacy matters more than ever

Alexander Dolitsky: World War II altered the American diet, and we grew larger

Alexander Dolitsky: The Communist Control Act of 1954 and an escape from the Soviet Union

Alexander Dolitsky: It takes courage to confront antisemitism and terrorism

Michael Tavoliero: Reversing the catastrophe of NLRB and Wickard decisions

Suzanne Downing
-
7
Michael Tavoliero: Reversing the catastrophe of NLRB and Wickard decisions

By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

The Lost Memory of a Limited Republic 

No American alive today remembers life before the 1930s, when the federal government’s reach into local and private life was still visibly restrained, though even then, much had already been eroded under Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. History books portray the late 1920s and 1930s as a morality tale of capitalism’s greed producing the Great Depression. Yet that narrative itself was shaped by progressive revisionism, magnifying crisis to justify the centralization of power in Washington. 

Some contemporaries warned of the danger. 

H.L. Mencken, in “Prejudices: Sixth Series” (1927), described a government that had “spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret,” cloaking itself in “the high dignity of a state religion,” while remaining “the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men.” 

Albert Jay Nock, in “Our Enemy the State” (1935), saw the same dynamic: every crisis gave the federal state new pretext to grow, while citizens bartered liberty for temporary relief, only to find perpetual dependency instead. 

The FDR administration like its contemporary, the Obama Administration, was a master class in the creating crisis and growing the leviathan: every emergency was seized as a pretext for Washington to expand, while citizens, desperate for stability, bartered liberty for temporary relief, only to discover dependency as the lasting inheritance. This “ratchet effect” ensured that once federal power grew, it never fully receded, transforming temporary crisis measures into permanent features of governance. 

The paradox is unmistakable. It fostered the belief that federal power had eliminated some of the nation’s greatest injustices, particularly civil rights inequities. Yet, when extended far beyond that limited achievement, it has eroded pluralism, estranged states from their rightful authority, distanced communities from self-governance, and left citizens feeling disconnected, thus, reshaping national culture into uniformity rather than unity.

Judicial Overreach: The “Switch in Time”

In 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Judge William Johnson that there was no danger he dreaded so much as “the consolidation [i.e., centralization] of our government by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court.”

That decisive break came with two Supreme Court rulings over a century later. 

In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937), the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act, declaring that labor disputes inside a single Aliquippa, PA, factory could be federally regulated because they might indirectly affect interstate commerce. The barrier between local and national affairs began to dissolve. 

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court extended this logic to the absurd. Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio farmer, grew wheat for personal use. The Court nevertheless held that his actions affected interstate commerce because if many farmers did likewise, the national wheat market would be disrupted. With that reasoning, virtually any activity could be brought under federal regulation. 

Just as the Dobbs decision declared that the Constitution is silent on the malevolence of abortion, and thus authority belongs to the people and their states, a reversal of NLRB and Wickard will restore economic self-government to the states. Roe represented the moral overreach of centralizing life-and-death decisions in Washington; NLRB and Wickard represents the constitutional overreach of centralizing the nation’s economic life in Washington. 

Dobbs marked a step back toward federalism. Undoing NLRB and Wickard will complete that step, returning not only one issue but the structure of economic liberty to the people of the states. These cases were not modest adjustments in constitutional doctrine; they were catastrophic revolutions. They converted the federal government from a limited power into an open-ended regulator of American life. They were the moral equivalence of murdering the freedoms of our constitutional republic. 

A Reversal: Toward Constitutional Reformation

“The great advances of civilization… have never come from centralized government.”, Milton Friedman, “Capitalism and Freedom” (1962).

What if these cases were reversed? The consequences will be immense, not chaotic, but reformational. Federal power will retreat to its proper domain: defense, foreign policy, currency, and genuine interstate commerce. States will once again govern their own affairs. 

One of the prevalent concerns of all freedom loving Americans as we approach the 2030’s is the overreach of federal regulatory power. The reversal of NLRB will lose sweeping control the federal bureaucracy has over labor relations. Federal wage and overtime mandates will no longer apply. Wickard’s reversal will end the fiction that Washington can regulate private gardens, home businesses, or purely local commerce. 

Economic Impacts to the Taxpayers, States and Federal Government

The economic savings and benefits of reversing NLRB and Wickard are overwhelmingly rich and substantive, but it ventures into territory where there is no authoritative data or modeling available as it appears no one has ever considered creating an economic model which portends the realities manifested to the tax payer, businesses, the states and the federal government. Yet isn’t this the foundation of the Trump administrations’ goal?

A vast variety of alphabet agencies will collapse, taxpayer savings will amount to an estimated direct federal budget savings of $40–50 billion annually, indirect regulatory/compliance relief of about $500 billion annually and over the next ten-year horizon $5 trillion plus in taxpayer and economic relief. 

The potential nationwide economic impacts to the states, expressed in today’s dollars, can be estimated as follows. Direct state and local budget savings may reach $30–60 billion annually, amounting to $300–600 billion over ten years. Indirect private-sector relief from reduced regulatory compliance could total $350–650 billion annually, or approximately $3.5–6.5 trillion over ten years. 

In addition, a dynamic growth premium from states, that successfully attract more people, businesses, and capital than they lose, could yield an extra $1–2 trillion in cumulative output over 10 years. Taken together, the total national uplift is estimated at $4.8–9.1 trillion over a decade, with most of the gains accruing to the states in the form of higher private-sector income, stronger investment, and an expanded tax base, provided states seize the opportunity to compete. 

A Return to Federalism

A return to federalism will roll back Commerce-Clause–driven intrusions, paring the intrastate reach of agencies like the NLRB, OSHA, EPA, EEOC, and parts of USDA and FDA, and shift civil-rights enforcement against private actors back to the states. 

With state power restored, labor, agriculture, environmental rules, and civil-rights policy will be set locally, producing diverse regimes that reflect community values. Washington will retain its taxing and spending tools (and grant conditions) but lose authority to directly regulate local conduct. Returning authorities will again be a state prerogative. 

The most contentious change is the relocation of civil-rights responsibility: without Commerce-Clause enforcement of the 1964 Act against private businesses, states would bear the burden. States will then carry the burden of protecting equality, and the differences among them will be stark. 

Yet in today’s environment, those differences will not remain hidden. They will be nationally visible, dissected in real time, and subject to relentless scrutiny through social media, independent journalism, and other digital platforms. Public review will amplify disparities, pressure policymakers, and ensure that state choices reverberate beyond their borders.

Decentralization will be uneven and at times painful; some states will fail in the task, but the people will recover. The remedy, however, is not perpetual federal supervision but civic responsibility, voting, organizing, moving, and holding local officials to account. 

Reversing NLRB and Wickard is not a technical tweak but a constitutional reformation: restoring states to their rights and duties, reintroducing competition in governance, and reviving the federalist design the Framers envisioned. Reagan’s adage, that Americans can “vote with their feet”, will become lived reality. The civic estrangement begun in 1937 and 1942 will give way to self-government by free citizens in their own communities.

Michael Tavoliero: Open the door to freedom by restoring senior citizens’ choice and dignity

Michael Tavoliero: Coincidences or conspiracies?

Michael Tavoliero: The slow surrender of senior independence to government dependence

Michael Tavoliero: Why HB 57 missed the mark on education reform

Old Farmer’s Almanac predicts mild winter in Alaska

Suzanne Downing
-
10
Old Farmer’s Almanac predicts mild winter in Alaska

The 2026 edition of The Old Farmer’s Almanac has released its 2025–2026 US Winter Weather Forecast, offering predictions for all 18 regions of the country, including Alaska.

For Alaska, the Almanac forecasts milder-than-normal temperatures and below-normal precipitation and snowfall. The coldest periods are expected in early to mid-December and again in mid-February. The snowiest stretches are projected for late November, mid-December, and early February.

The publication, first issued in 1792, claims an accuracy rate of about 80% for its long-range forecasts. Its predictions are based on a proprietary formula that factors in historical weather data, solar activity, and other influences. But meteorologists often urge caution when applying the Almanac’s outlook to Alaska, given the state’s size and complexity.

At one-fifth the size of the continental US, Alaska’s weather is notoriously difficult to generalize. Local climates can differ dramatically between regions such as Southeast, Interior, and Arctic Alaska. A 2018 University of Alaska Fairbanks review found the Almanac’s accuracy in Alaska was mixed, at about 65% for temperature predictions but closer to 50% for precipitation and snowfall.

Recent history reflects those inconsistencies. The 2024–2025 forecast underestimated snowfall in Anchorage while overestimating warmth in Fairbanks, though it correctly predicted mild spells in Southeast Alaska.

After an unseasonably cool early summer in some parts of Alaska, late August has turned warmer, with the Alaska State Fair, ending on Sept. 1, enjoying mild enough weather for shorts and t-shirts.

Four in a row: Winters in Alaska have been on the colder side

Appeals court revives case of Alaska Airlines flight attendants fired over Biden LGBTQ law debate

Suzanne Downing
-
22
Appeals court revives case of Alaska Airlines flight attendants fired over Biden LGBTQ law debate

Two Alaska Airlines flight attendants who say they were fired for expressing religious objections to President Biden’s LGBTQ policies are getting another chance in court.

A liberal federal judge in Seattle, Barbara Rothstein, had dismissed their lawsuit with prejudice, ruling that the attendants had not shown evidence of discrimination by the airline or the Association of Flight Attendants union. Rothstein, a longtime judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter, closed the case about 15 months ago.

But on Aug. 22, a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, made up of Judge Morgan Christen (of Anchorage), Judge Kenneth Lee, and Judge Daniel Bress, strongly questioned that ruling during oral arguments. The appellate judges suggested the case should go to a jury, warning Alaska Airlines and the union’s lawyers not to be overly confident in their interpretation of the evidence.

The case involves flight attendants Lacey Smith and Marli Brown, who, on an internal employee message board, criticized Alaska’s public support for federal LGBTQ protections. They were later fired.

During the hearing, the appellate judges pointed to statements by company officials that could be interpreted as showing hostility toward the attendants’ religious beliefs. They also raised concerns that Alaska Airlines and the union representing flight attendants may not have given the women a fair defense.

The original lawsuit by the attendants, represented by First Liberty, was filed in May, 2022.

“When Alaska Airlines proudly declared on the company’s internal message board its support of the passage of the deceptively-titled Equality Act, it invited employees to comment. First Liberty clients Lacey and Marli responded on the company’s online forum, asking genuine and respectful questions about their employer’s support for the legislation. Their faith compelled them to ask about the Airline’s support for federal legislation that would remove protections for women and religious employees in the workplace. The company disparaged their beliefs and promptly fired them over these questions,” First Liberty wrote.

“Last year, a federal district court handed down an alarming ruling that deprived our clients of their chance to prove their case before a jury. The court ignored overwhelming evidence of religious discrimination to rule in favor of Alaska Airlines and the flight attendants’ union,” the legal group that is defending the women noted.

If Rothstein’s ruling stands, “it would empower employers to punish employees simply for expressing their religious beliefs. It would give businesses leeway to discriminate against employees who hold religious beliefs about the nature of male and female or the need to protect women’s spaces, if done under the guise of protecting other employees from hearing ideas that they find offensive.”

More about this case at FirstLiberty.org.



UA Regents to consider policy changes to align with Trump nondiscrimination orders

Suzanne Downing
-
5
UA Regents to consider policy changes to align with Trump nondiscrimination orders

The University of Alaska Board of Regents is considering revisions to its nondiscrimination and equal employment policies in order to comply with executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that require public institutions to ensure policies do not permit discrimination in hiring, promotion, or education through so-called “diversity, equity, inclusion” policies that show preference to some groups and discriminate against others. The board will meet in Juneau this week.

The proposed update, P01.02.025: Discrimination, restates that the university will not tolerate discrimination that creates an intimidating or hostile environment, while also reaffirming protections for free expression and academic freedom. It states that discrimination—whether intentional or unintentional—based on a legally protected status is prohibited, and establishes reporting processes for complaints.

The most significant changes appear in the Equal Employment Opportunity section, which eliminates references to “affirmative action” and replaces them with “equal opportunity and access.” The older policy explicitly called on the university to recruit and retain women, minorities, and other “historically underrepresented groups.” The proposed revision instead emphasizes merit-based hiring and promotion, while continuing to prohibit unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, disability, veteran status, gender identity, political affiliation, and other legally protected categories.

University officials have acknowledged the revisions are necessary to bring UA policies into compliance with federal directives issued earlier this year, which bar federally funded institutions from maintaining affirmative action-style programs and instead required them to certify that hiring, promotion, and education practices are nondiscriminatory and based on equally applied merit standards.

The Board of Regents is expected to take up the revisions at its upcoming meeting. If approved, the policies would set new standards for how the university addresses discrimination and equal employment moving forward.

The redlined version of the policy, with proposed changes, is at this link.

Kevin McCabe: The next governor must make Port MacKenzie a priority

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR
-
23
Kevin McCabe: The next governor must make Port MacKenzie a priority

By REP. KEVIN MCCABE

Alaska stands at a crossroads in its economic development. Vast untapped resources could propel our state into a new era of prosperity, but without the infrastructure to move them to market, they remain stranded. Central to unlocking this potential are the Point MacKenzie Rail Spur and Port MacKenzie.

The rail spur, a 32-mile extension connecting Port MacKenzie to the Alaska Railroad mainline near Houston, creates the shortest rail route from the Interior to tidewater. Port MacKenzie itself is a deep-draft facility across Knik Arm from Anchorage, with 9,000 acres of industrial land ready for exports and logistics. It is as ice-free as the Port of Anchorage, has never needed dredging, and can handle Panamax-size ships. The dock already has the safety features in place, making it an excellent solution for bulk exports.

This is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. Most of the infrastructure is already built, with nearly $184 million invested. What remains is leadership to finish the job. We cannot call ourselves a resource state while refusing to complete the transportation projects that move our resources to market. The return on investment is undeniable, and the benefits far outweigh any lingering concerns.

Completing the spur would mean thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in new revenue. Up to 3,000 jobs in mining, timber, energy, and construction could be created, and the project could generate $300 million annually in royalties, fees, and taxes. A 2007 study projected $4.4 billion in long-term benefits. These are not speculative numbers; they reflect the enormous value of turning stranded assets into revenue-producing exports in a state that develops resources better, safer, and with more environmental concern than anywhere else in the world.

The resources are already there. Copper and zinc from the Ambler Mining District, where companies plan to export 1.7 million tons annually, could move through Port MacKenzie. The same is true for graphite, antimony, rare earths, and other minerals critical to modern technology. Timber and coal exports would gain new life with this route, reducing shipping costs by up to 70 percent compared to trucking or air. The biomass and LNG needed for globally required Sustainable Aviation Fuel are available through Port Mack and could be produced right there. In a global market where efficiency determines competitiveness, that margin is decisive.

This infrastructure would make Alaska’s resources competitive in global markets, especially with our Indo-Pacific Allies. It would directly support projects such as the $43 billion Alaska LNG development, which depends on efficient material transport. For a state struggling with declining oil revenues and population stagnation, diversification through Port Mack is not optional; it is imperative.

The advantages are not just economic but strategic. Alaska’s Interior holds critical minerals the nation needs for technology, renewable energy, and defense. Today those assets are trapped, forcing dependence on foreign suppliers, including China, for materials like rare earths and antimony. Completing the rail spur aligns with President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order expanding rail infrastructure for oil, gas, timber, coal, and minerals. It advances energy independence, strengthens national security, and supports Arctic defense by creating an efficient logistics route between Interior bases and tidewater.

Critics point to Port MacKenzie’s limited past use, but without rail access the port cannot attract the volume needed for viability. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. Completing the spur breaks the cycle, opening the door to high-volume and bulk exports and finally putting this asset to work for Alaskans.

The construction progress underscores how close we are. Seventy-five percent of the spur is complete, including 25 miles of embankment, bridges, 110 culverts, and a one-mile loop. What remains is track and signaling. This is not a shovel-ready project; it is beyond shovel-ready and overdue.

Concerns about navigation in Cook Inlet and winter operations are real but not insurmountable. They are the same issues faced by the Port of Anchorage. More powerful tugboats and skilled pilots have already solved these challenges, and operators themselves confirm the risks are well within their capabilities. What is not acceptable is continuing to let our mineral wealth sit idle while past investments gather dust.

Diversification for Alaska is not optional; it’s imperative. We need infrastructure that creates jobs, broadens our revenue base, and strengthens our position in global supply chains. The Point MacKenzie Rail Spur and Port MacKenzie do exactly that. They offer Alaska the chance to move from potential to production, from stagnation to growth.

The next governor must make this project a priority. That means securing federal grants, state bonds, and private investment to finish the job. It means streamlining regulations to move construction forward. And it means standing up to critics who are content to watch opportunity slip away for political reasons. Alaska cannot afford another decade of delay.

In the end, this is not about politics or one port or rail line. It is about whether Alaska will live up to its identity as a resource state. The jobs, the revenue, the strategic advantages, and the diversification are all within reach. What we need now is the leadership to bring them across the finish line.

The Point MacKenzie Rail Spur and Port MacKenzie are the linchpins of Alaska’s future. They will define whether our resources remain stranded in the Interior or flow to world markets. They will determine whether our state prospers or continues to tread water. The choice before the next governor is simple: finish what Alaska has already started, or let our resources, and our children’s future, remain stranded. The right choice is clear.

Rep. Kevin McCabe serves in the Alaska Legislature on behalf of District 30.

Kevin McCabe: Ranked-choice voting cheats voters, but Alaskans are fighting back

Kevin McCabe: The intentional delay of a Senate bill leaves revenue reform in legislative limbo

Kevin McCabe: Putting Alaska’s students first in 2026

Kevin McCabe: Why Alaska needs an Agriculture Department — and why the Legislature overstepped

Almanac: Ten years ago, Obama sparked a naming fight over Alaska’s tallest peak

Suzanne Downing
-
32
Almanac: Ten years ago, Obama sparked a naming fight over Alaska’s tallest peak

On Aug. 28, 2015, President Barack Obama, through Sec. of Interior Sally Jewell, announced that Alaska’s towering Mount McKinley would be officially renamed “Denali,” restoring an Athabascan name long used by Alaska Natives and many residents of the state. The decision was celebrated as a recognition of indigenous heritage, though it launched a controversy as well, as some saw the move as an insult to President William McKinley, the mountain’s namesake since 1896.

That name change officially lasted less than a decade. On Jan. 20, 2025 — his first day back in office — President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the US Department of the Interior to reinstate the name Mount McKinley, making it his first official act upon returning to the White House. Just three days later, on Jan. 23, Interior finalized the change, restoring “Mount McKinley” in all federal records. Google map references soon followed.

Today, the iconic 20,310-foot peak stands in Denali National Park and Preserve under the McKinley name, and Alaskans continue to use both names in everyday conversation. For many, “Denali” remains as a matter of identity, while “McKinley” endures as the federally recognized name, in spite of the Alaska Legislature passing a resolution in begging Trump to restore the name “Denali.”

The controversy has somewhat fizzled, replaced by other culture war issues of the day such as transgenderism and mutilation of children.

Murkowski fights Trump with legislation renaming Mount McKinley ‘Denali’

House passes first bill, begs President Trump to change the name of Mount McKinley back to Denali

Fairbanks Democrat pushes vote on resolution asking Trump to restore ‘Denali’ name for Mount McKinley

Wayne Heimer: McKinley, a rose by any other name

Alex Gimarc: Trump is throwing elbows at Lisa by restoring the name of Mount McKinley

Ousted Sierra Club chief claims racism, not his own behavioral issues, was reason he was fired

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
16
Ousted Sierra Club chief claims racism, not his own behavioral issues, was reason he was fired

By MELISSA O’ROURKE | DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION

Ben Jealous, the former executive director of the Sierra Club, claimed he was forced out because of racism after being fired in August following sexual harassment allegations, Bloomberg reports.

The board of directors of the Sierra Club, one of the oldest and largest environmental organizations in the country, voted unanimously to remove Jealous from his role in early August after a review of his behavior. The dismissal followed a misconduct complaint filed earlier in the year by an employee alleging sexual harassment and bullying, though Jealous attributed his firing to racial bias, Bloomberg reports.

“No one can be surprised that the Sierra Club has resorted to personal attacks. That’s how racial retaliation works. When you’re being discriminated against, they don’t accuse you of being Black,” Jealous said in a statement from his lawyer, according to Bloomberg. “Before I left, I raised serious issues of racism and retaliation, and I have honored the confidential process in my contract rather than leak those publicly. It is no coincidence these accusations surface now, after I filed my arbitration complaint detailing the discrimination and retaliation I endured.”

The complaint alleged that Jealous made unwelcome sexual remarks that included graphic comments about his own sex life and the bodies of women at the organization, according to Bloomberg. The complaint also alleges verbal abuse and screaming fits toward the employee.

Jealous, who became the Sierra Club’s first black leader in 2023, previously served as the chief of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Neither Jealous nor the Sierra Club responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.

Founded in 1892, the Sierra Club is known not only for its environmental activism but also for its involvement in liberal political advocacy. The group lists its core values as “anti-racism, balance, collaboration, justice, and transformation” on its site.

At the height of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, the Sierra Club disavowed its co-founder, John Muir, citing racist beliefs. The group accused Muir, who died in 1914, of making “derogatory comments about Black people and Indigenous peoples that drew on deeply harmful racist stereotypes.”

MSNBC host and civil rights activist Al Sharpton spoke out in support of Jealous following his firing.

“I am troubled by the Sierra Club’s manner in which they parted ways with Ben Jealous, a man who has carried himself with dedication, professionalism, and integrity in the time I have known him,” Sharpton said in a statement on Aug. 12 after Jealous’ firing was announced. “There are serious racial implications in firing a Black man of Ben’s caliber, in this fashion, at a time when diversity is under attack. It also runs counter to the Sierra Club’s own principle of eradicating racism.”

Environmentalists sue Trump Administration for taking down websites that Obama, Biden put online

Appeals court upholds federal approval of Alaska LNG exports, rejects environmental challenge

Downing: Greenhouse Graft Fund and the revolving-door Biden parasites who feed on it

Murkowski breaks from Sen. Cassidy, White House in CDC firing debate

Suzanne Downing
-
55
Murkowski breaks from Sen. Cassidy, White House in CDC firing debate

US Sen. Lisa Murkowski is once again carving out a solitary path in Washington, this time over the sudden firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez. While most Republican leaders are echoing the White House’s call for “radical transparency” at the troubled agency, Murkowski instead suggested the ouster was proof that “politics are taking precedence over policy.”

“The firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez just a month after her confirmation, along with the departure of other high-level disease experts the day after her termination, raises considerable questions about what is happening within the agency,” Murkowski said. “Americans must be able to fully trust that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rigorously adheres to science-based and data-driven principles when issuing policy directives.”

But Murkowski’s analysis pointedly ignored the rationale provided by both the White House and Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Louisiana Republican and medical doctor who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Cassidy, a physician and the first to lead HELP, has embraced the administration’s pledge to overhaul the CDC with accountability and transparency.

“The President and Secretary are right. We need radical transparency. We need to protect the health of our children. The two go together,” Cassidy said this week. “I am committed to the President’s vision, which is why the HELP Committee will conduct oversight.”

The president’s Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated the same message: “The President and Secretary Kennedy are committed to restoring trust and transparency and credibility to the CDC … We’re going to make sure that folks that are in positions of leadership there are aligned with that mission.”

Murkowski interpreted it her own way. She struck a discordant tone, suggesting political interference but offering no specific evidence. While aligning herself with Cassidy’s call for oversight, she stopped short of embracing either the White House’s stated mission or Cassidy’s endorsement of it.

Her remarks underscore a familiar pattern: Murkowski frequently distances herself from both her party and the Trump Administration, always seeing the worst in all-things-Trump, often to the frustration of colleagues who see her equivocation as muddying the message at a time when Republicans are seeking clarity and strength on public health reform.

Dunleavy vs. Murkowski? That’s quite a story, Fox News

Murkowski has $345 million in earmarks requested for Alaska for FY 26

Trump moves to eliminate illegals from official census count; Murkowski was lone GOP holdout vote in ’24

Murkowski tanks in latest Alaska poll, drops 75 points among her progressive base, as Democrats attack

Murkowski and Shaheen demand $50 billion for Ukraine

Zack Gottshall: Lisa Murkowski finally admits it — now the GOP must do its job

1...91011...1,726Page 10 of 1,726

About us

Must Read Alaska is news of people, politics, policy, culture, and happenings in Alaska.

Contact
4021 West Hill Road,
Homer, AK 99603
[email protected]

The latest

The Awakening of America

The 907 0
By JON FAULKNER The murder of Charlie Kirk is impacting...

Teachers Have a Choice: The AAE Alternative

Politics 2
By NATALIE SPAULDING While the National Education Association of Alaska...

Stephen Cox: Charlie Kirk And The Duty To Defend Free Speech Against The Assassin’s Veto 

Columns 8
By ALASKA ATTORNEY GENERAL, STEPHEN J. COX The tragic assassination...

© Must Read Alaska