A drama that will star Hilary Swank and Tom McCarthy is sure to feature the Anchorage Daily News, as two of the coproducers are tightly bound with the newspaper.
The Hollywood Reporter announced that Swank will star in a newspaper drama that is being written, directed and exec produced by McCarthy for ABC, which has picked up the untitled Alaska drama.The project is being eyed for consideration as part of a 2022-23 pilot season.
“The drama revolves around a star journalist (Swank) who moves to Alaska for a fresh start after a career-killing misstep and finds redemption personally and professionally after joining a daily metro newspaper in Anchorage,” the publication wrote. Ryan Binkley, publisher and owner of the ADN as a member of the Binkley Company, and Kyle Hopkins, a hardline leftist who writes for the newspaper, will co-produce.
Swank has won Oscars for Boys Don’t Cry and Million Dollar Baby, and recently starred in Netflix’s drama Away.
Alaska members of the House of Representatives have been tangling over a number of patients’ rights amendments to a telehealth bill that the governor has requested.
Their votes on Sunday night lined up almost exactly according to how they have been funded by ASHNHA, the Alaska statewide association of hospitals, nursing homes, and healthcare partners.
For example, many of those who voted against an amendment to allow patients to have an advocate in their hospital room with them received campaign funds from ASHNHA.
Listen to the debate segment, featuring opposite points of view — Rep. Zack Fields arguing for the bureaucracy, and Rep. David Eastman arguing for patients and families — here:
Amendment Four passed 20-16, against ASHNHA’s wishes. If it stood, it would guarantee hospitals must allow a patient to have an advocate with them in ths hospital.
That’s when Democrats, such as Rules Chair Bryce Edgmon, said the entire bill was now too flawed to proceed, and Speaker Louise Stutes sent it back to Rules Committee to have that provision stripped out of it.
Here are the members of the House who received campaign contributions from ASHNHA in 2020. ASHNHA opposes this provision to allow patients to have their advocates with them:
Now, here is how the vote went down on Amendment 4, the rights of patients to have a family member or advocate with them, within parameters, while they are being cared for by the medical establishment. Most members who received funds from ASHNHA voted the way ASHNHA wanted them to — against the amendment.
Chugiak High School is using a behavioral contract for students who are not complying with the Anchorage School District’s mask mandate.
The contract is being given to students who have been warned in the past that they are not wearing their masks properly. The contract requires the student to sign it and detail what steps he or she will take to ensure they don’t break the mask rules again.
Behavior contracts are common in high schools and are designed to make students accountable or their actions in the classroom and to document repeat incidents or behaviors for student examination.
Here we go again with another power grab by a corrupted federal agency.
We learned a lot during Act I of this farce. That extraordinary fantasy was an introduction of a 404(c) section of the Clean Water Act to block the Pebble Project before it was allowed to enter the National Environmental Policy Actprocess.
This wasn’t simply rare; it was unprecedented.
EPA was very aware of this circumstance, and cheered in internal emails both the honor of being the first and the value of such a play to allow EPA to render such judgments without the lengthy, science-based assessment of the NEPA process.
Think about this for just a moment. Skipping the NEPA process means EPA will not need the input from any of the nearly two dozen who could potentially be cooperating agencies (there were 8 Federal agencies involved in the environmental impact study for the Pebble project).
Skipping the NEPA Process meant no public comment, no state agencies, it meant no science worthy of the name. Remember, EPA did no field work in Bristol Bay before making this decision.
A resource development state should be terrified from both sides of the political spectrum — if EPA under an anti-development government can dismiss projects without the NEPA process; why couldn’t EPA under a pro-development government approve a project without going through the NEPA process?
EPA tried, of course, and was sued and lost on their initial effort to be the single arbiter of developer projects. Allow me to correct a common and erroneous assessment of the 404(c) saga. The adjudication of the actions by EPA all happened under the Obama administration (people usually get that right).
The second assessment is typically incorrect. That report says something like “Trump’s EPA reversed it” or a version that is similar. Not exactly. The adjudication had only two meaningful directives— one was that the Pebble project could be allowed to enter the NEPA Process (as had been allowed to many many thousands of projects since 1972). The second is what gets glossed over too often— that within 90 days of the signing of the settlement “EPA must begin the process of lifting the preliminary determination” (what is often called the veto).
Obama’s EPA was directed to remove the preliminary determination — they essentially refused — more than two year’s past the settlement’s directed time-line , Trump’s EPA met the requirements of the settlement. They didn’t “reverse” anything (and they didn’t exactly hurry it along).
Now we hear about efforts to give the 404(c) another go. The vague goal is to give Bristol Bay “more protection.”
In fact EPA is back to the “zoning” precedent they sought with the first effort at 404(c). The honest definition of “more protection “ is “advanced prohibition.” This has been discussed at EPA since 2005 and was the goal of the first 404(c) efforts.
EPA wants you to believe this is good for you, that it will facilitate planning by developers and industry. They claim it “will eliminate the frustrating situations in which someone spends time and money developing a project for an inappropriate site and learns at an advanced stage that he must start over.”
Who do you think would be the authority to determine “inappropriate” sites? Exactly how would that be determined?
Get ready for the next promise. “…in addition, advance prohibition will facilitate comprehensive rather than piecemeal protection of wetlands.”
Let’s digest this one for a moment. The phrase “advance prohibition” should make you take a breath.
Advance of what? In the 2005 case, any science, even the pathetic Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment (BBWA), pseudo-science at best, had not yet begun. Advance of public input? Advance of a development plan?
Concerned yet? How about “comprehensive rather than piecemeal protection”. That way no one needs to deal with a single development project, we can skip site specific assessment, size of development, environmental baseline assessments, the whole array of environmental safeguards that might apply to a “piecemeal” evaluation.
With this claimed authority EPA can zone massive regions with advance prohibition. Indeed, the conclusion of BBWA was “no mine of any size” should be allowed in Bristol Bay. They had hoped to have the effort serve as a model for a new wave that they termed “proactive watershed planning”. There you have it Alaska, prohibitive zoning of a piece of land as large as the state of Ohio.
With the end game revealed, you can start to see the reason and the purpose of the massive narrative of fear campaign carried out by EPA and its host of environmental activists. EPA desperately wants that precedent, and Bristol Bay seems eager to give it to them.
The “Pebbled” series at Must Read Alaska is authored by Mark Hamilton. After 31 years of service to this nation, Hamilton retired as a Major General with the U. S. Army in July of 1998. He served for 12 years as President of University of Alaska, and is now President Emeritus.He worked for the Pebble Partnership for three years before retiring.The series continues next week.
Happy with how things are going down at City Hall in Juneau? Do you understand how commercial property tax assessments increased by a huge amount during a pandemic, even while some property values diminished? Do you have an explanation how the City and Borough of Juneau added the equivalent of 25 new staffing positions at a time when sales tax and other revenues were plummeting?
Juneau’s Assembly and the senior management team apparently believe there is an unending source of revenue available for them to spend. And spend, spend, spend is the main activity of our elected and appointed servants here in Juneau.
Not only did commercial property tax assessments increase by a vast amount during a pandemic, the City and Borough of Juneau keeps adding new staffing positions even as sales tax revenues plummeted. Next up is a proposal to add staff to plan for the new city hall building that is the dream of the bureaucrats who really run our little city.
I’ve owned and managed a modest business in Juneau and collected and paid sales tax to the CBJ for over 25 years. We pay our personal property taxes around my home. My business regularly supports youth athletic teams and provides funding for a variety of charitable activities that enhance Juneau and its residents. I understand that taxes and contributing are important.
But Juneau’s local government has an addiction to spending. Our little community of 32,000 has an adopted budget of $421 million. That means we intend to spend $421 million on local municipal functions according to the most recently adopted budget passed by the Assembly. And, in order to adopt this outsized budget, the Assembly dipped into savings.
The Assembly routinely adds expensive staff to coordinate policy discussion about hot-button topics, including housing, tourism, and other topics du jour. These positions never seem to sunset, but instead evolve. The expense of the positions continues, and the bureaucracy grows.
Juneau generously supports an economic development entity that does little for actual economic activity and is clueless as to the real world of commerce.
Juneau spends tax dollars paying dues to the ineffective Southeast Conference, an organization that hasn’t added significant value to public decision making for decades.
Our little town, located in the capital of our state has two lobbyists on the payroll who deliver with the same regularity as the post office on Sunday.
For way too long, we paid an expensive deputy manager who elevated process over results, causing various observers to wonder just why we need a deputy city manager anyway? Perhaps so the City Manager could take a sabbatical, which to the wonder of many and the amusement of nobody actually happened.
If you are tired of the dithering and antics that too often characterize the decision-making of our Assembly, there is something you can do to register your dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Vote!
Don’t be put off by the lack of candidates who might reform the way budgets are adopted and how our city operates. Get the ballot, fill in the oval next to the “write in” line and cast your ballot for “none of the above,” if you are not satisfied with the direction of our municipal government.
Each candidate deserves to be reviewed, but if you are not satisfied, express your dissatisfaction. If enough voters indicate their unwillingness to support continued government growth and more spending, maybe our elected officials and the senior management team will start acting differently.
There is another democratic act you can take to signal that Juneau’s local government is out of control:
The municipal ballot this October will ask whether you want to extend the 3% sales tax. Personally, I have not made up my mind whether I will support the extension. I can think of some decent reasons to extend the sales tax, but what will persuade me to vote “yes” on the extension will be a clear commitment from the candidates running for office that they will spend public funds more efficiently and thoughtfully. Without a commitment to spend like adults, why would anyone continue taxing themselves to keep government growing?
My complaint is not with the hard-working folks who plow the streets, collect the taxes, and complete the activities required to pay our bills. I believe the employees who deliver the water and conduct essential services deserve a decent wage and benefits. But anyone who thinks there isn’t fluff and fat in the City budget isn’t paying attention.
Juneau’s budget is $421 million and likely to grow. Our population is and has been plateaued for a while and isn’t likely to increase anytime soon. This is a situation that is unsustainable and why “None of the Above” makes sense.
Joe Geldhof is an attorney and civic activist in Juneau.
Rep. Zack Fields, who represents downtown Anchorage, told his House colleagues on Sunday that people who have not gotten the Covid-19 shot are dying because Republican politicians in the House are posturing.
“We have 1,500 people dying every day because politicians, and bloggers, and conspiracy mongers have discouraged people from getting vaccinated … And we are considering the first in a long series of vaccine bashing amendments, and it is a travesty! … With this amendment we would be discouraging vaccination, directly would result in more people dying avoidably.”
Fields flipped back and forth between yelling and mock-laughing during his remarks.
He continued to angrily bash “politicians, bloggers, and conspiracy mongers,” repeating the target of his ire in case people had not heard it the first time. As for the people who are dying, he said, “It’s not really their fault that they primarily get their information from Facebook or from some of our colleagues.”
“This is just unbelievable that for political self-aggrandizement we would be endangering Alaskans, I urge a no vote,” Fields said, before pandemonium erupted in the House as Republican members objected to his impugning the motives of his colleagues, a clear violation of decorum and floor rules. Several called for a “point of order.”
Fields shouted at them, “I would assert my right to make a simple observation,” the observation being that Republicans are causing deaths for political purposes.
Speaker Louise Stutes issued no warning against Fields for accusing his colleagues of causing Alaskans to die. She frequently warns Republicans and also frequently calls them out of order, but often lets Fields, who has a history of bad behavior, slide.
The House was debating a number of amendments to the governor’s telehealth bill, which was a bill to allow more access to telehealth.
But when the House got the bill, various issues were tacked onto it, mainly from Republicans interested in protecting the rights of Alaskans to make their own medical decisions regarding vaccines.
The amendment to protect people from vaccine mandates failed 18-18, with Speaker Stutes casting the deciding vote to make it fail.
An amendment offered by Rep. Sarah Vance, also drew the ire of Fields and Rules Chair Bryce Edgmon. The Vance amendment would prevent hospitals from denying patients the ability to have a person with them as a personal advocate, family member, or comforter. Many Republicans spoke to the need for sick people to have such an advocate by their side. Ultimately that amendment passed, but not before Fields and Edgmon objected strenuously.
At Amendment 5 it became clear the Democrats were losing control and there were 16 more amendments to go. The Democrat majority sent the bill back to the Rules Committee and it will appear on Monday on the House Floor for its second reading.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy joined a phone call with 20 Republican governors on Friday to discuss a lawsuit to be filed in federal court against the Biden Administration over its extreme federal mandate requiring Covid shots for the entire federal workforce and any business with more than 100 employees. Congress and the U.S. Postal
The lawsuit may need to be filed in a state that is not in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but in one that is more friendly to the U.S. Constitution.
Republican leaders, including GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, expressed horror last week at Biden’s coronavirus vaccine mandates. On Thursday, Biden openly bashed Republicans during his address, in which he announced his immunization orders for all federal employees, federal contractors, health-care workers in facilities that have Medicare or Medicaid clients, as well as all private businesses with more than 100 employees. Business who don’t want to comply with the shots must do mandatory testing for Covid of their unvaccinated employees.
Biden said his patience was wearing thin for people who are unvaccinated against Covid-19.
Dunleavy immediately last week called the president’s order outrageous and unenforceable. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas called it “a power grab.” South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster said he will fight Mr. Biden to “the gates of hell.”
In past pandemics, the Supreme Court has upheld the government’s right to inject medicine into people, but this court is more conservative and the past rulings may be ripe for overturning.
The president’s mandate says that Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration will put in place an “emergency temporary standard” until a permanent standard is in place. OSHA’s website says it has the power to issue standards if “workers are in grave danger” from toxic substances or agents or to new hazards.
The governors are consulting with their legal advisors about the best path forward and which state takes the lead.
The Municipality of Anchorage awarded the contract to continue mass care shelter to contractor 99 Plus 1, Inc. The contract with Bean’s Cafe to run the mass care shelter ends Sept. 15.
“I am pleased that mass care shelter will continue without disruption in service,” said Mayor Dave Bronson. “One of my top priorities has been a commitment to helping our homeless neighbors in need.”
It will continue for now at the Sullivan Arena, although the mayor’s plan is to have a navigation center for those experiencing homelessness on Tudor Road at Elmore Road.
As part of the transition to 99 Plus 1, an Anchorage company, no clients will have to leave and there will be adequate staff, Bronson said. There will be bedding, food, and navigation services available.
99 Plus 1, Inc. will be onsite at the Sullivan Arena on Monday, Sept. 13 to interview prospective employees. Although Bean’s Cafe applied to continue running the mass care services, the nonprofit did not win the contract.
The contract is not indefinite; it will end on Oct. 31. The plan is to move forward with Bronson’s initial plans and get the Sullivan Arena back to use as a hockey venue. Bronson is being blocked by the liberal members of the Assembly, who want to continue to use the facility as a homeless shelter until they can push through their own plan, which differs from the mayor’s.
I was a presenter at the Juneau–Gastineau Rotary Club in January, 2020, speaking on “Several sanctioned avenues for immigration to the United States.” At the end of my presentation, an attendee asked a question: “Alexander, what was the most difficult area of your acculturation and assimilation in the United States?”
“My behavior,” I said without any hesitation. As I answered the question, I instantly observed by the reaction of the audience; they expected a different, perhaps more obvious response, such as food, language, customs, economics, politics, appearance, etc.
True, for a newcomer’s adaptation, these socio-economic categories are essential for survival in a foreign environment. Nevertheless, people’s behavior (e.g., temperament, manners, demeanor, gestures, conducts, actions, bearing, comportment, preferences, motivation, ambition, etc.) is the most critical obstacle for acculturation and assimilation to new cultural traditions.
According to prominent American sociologist Joseph Elton, “Acculturation is the adoption of cultural traits, norms and customs by one society from another… There is no clear line [that] can be drawn between acculturation and assimilation processes. Assimilation is the end–product of a process of acculturation, in which an individual has changed so much as to become dissociated from the value system of his group, or in which the entire group disappears as an autonomously functioning social system.”
All of us live within a culture. Most cultural descriptions have labels such as “middle class,” “American,” or “Yupik and Inupiat.” These labels often become associated in our minds with certain habitual features. One such attribute for “middle-class Americans,” for example, might be typical foods — hamburgers, hot dogs and Coca Cola. Of course, this is a very broad and superficial understanding of culture.
Culture is learned behavior passing from one generation to another—an ongoing process that changes gradually over time as a learned means of survival. In contrast, all animals adapt to their environment through biological evolution. If an animal was well adapted to its physical environment, it prospered. If it was not, it either evolved or became extinct.
As a result of biological evolution and adaptation to the northern environment, for example, the polar bear developed a thick coat and layers of fat to protect it from the arctic cold. But the Yupik and Inupiat do not possess fur. They wear warm clothing, and in the past, made sod houses to protect themselves from the harsh environment. Their ancient tools and dwellings were part of their culture—their adaptive system that coincides with the polar bear’s fur.
In short, language, religion, education, economics, technology, social organization, art and political structure are typical categories of culture. Culture is a uniquely human system of habits, moral values and customs carried by the society from one’s distant past to the present.
Acculturation and assimilation to a culture by newcomers is a personal and self-determined process—the right to make one’s own decisions without interference from others. No one can force a newly–arrived legal immigrant to accept the cultural traditions, lifestyle, and customs of his new country. The newcomer himself must see a socio–economic necessity and benefit in accepting new traditions and values in order ultimately to embrace and accept his new culture without external influence.
I first visited Alaska in 1981, while participating in archaeological field research for graduate school at Brown University. Then, I was one of few, if not the only, Soviet–born people in Alaska since 1945 (Russian Old Believers arrived in Alaska in the 1960s from Oregon and South America).
In fact, from 1946 to 1986, or during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, travel to Alaska was officially closed to Soviet citizens, just as Siberia was closed for American citizens. There was an exception for select scientists, visiting both places for research–related purposes under the auspices of the International Research Exchange Board. In 1981, I already was a permanent resident of the United States, with a green light for traveling to Alaska.
Then, as a recent political refugee from the Soviet Union, my behavior was still typically Russian—direct, impulsive, critical, opinionated and emotional (certainly, very general stereotype of the Russian character). Fortunately, my sponsors and hosts in Alaska, Charles Holmes from Anchorage and Glenn Bacon from Fairbanks, were trained and professional anthropologists; they cross-culturally were able to understand my behavior and occasional awkward expressions and guide me through rough waters and unfamiliar landscapes.
After 40 years, Charles and Glenn are still my good and loyal friends. From the mid-1980s and on, Bill Ruddy, Robert Price, Wallace Olson and Tom Hanley of Juneau played a similar role in my life.
On one occasion, a humorous cross-cultural incident took place in Fairbanks in the summer of 1981. Glenn’s in-laws invited me to their house for dinner. To experience Russian cuisine, they asked me to cook some traditional Russian meal. So, I managed to cook a borshch (cabbage soup) and authentic Salad Olivye (boiled potatoes cut in cubes, green peas, boiled eggs, cooked carrots cut into cubes, cubed ham, olives, onion, large pickles cut into cubes, and ½ cup of mayonnaise—all mixed together).
After a dinner, I played a guitar and performed several Russian songs for everyone. At some point, Glenn’s mother-in-law approached me and confessed, “I had always envisioned Russians as tall, dark, with shaking hands. But you are different.” I only smiled in my response, and took her description of a “Russian man” without offense. After all, I was the first Russian she had ever met, except for the demonic Russian characters portraited in Hollywood.
Indeed, the process of acculturation and assimilation can be long and turbulent for many legal newcomers. It is critical, therefore, for American society to be inclusive, tolerant and educated in cross–cultural communication in order to welcome legal newcomers to our diverse and exceptional country.
Alexander B. 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 was enroled in the Ph.D. program in Anthropology at Bryn Mawr College from 1983 to 1985, where he was also a lecturer in the Russian Center. In the U.S.S.R., he was a social studies teacher for three years, and an archaeologist for five years for the Ukranian 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 lived first in Sitka in 1985 and then settled in Juneau in 1986. From 1985 to 1987, he was a 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 from 1988 to 2006; and has been the Director of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center (see www.aksrc.homestead.com) from 1990 to present. He has conducted about 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 has been a lecturer on the World Discoverer, Spirit of Oceanus, andClipper Odyssey vessels in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. He was the Project Manager for the WWII Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease Memorial, which was erected in Fairbanks in 2006. He 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: Russian Old Believers in Alaska; Allies in Wartime: The Alaska-Siberia Airway During WWII; Spirit of the Siberian Tiger: Folktales of the Russian Far East; Living Wisdom of the Far North: Tales and Legends from Chukotka and Alaska; Pipeline to Russia; The Alaska-Siberia Air Route in WWII; and Old Russia in Modern America: Living Traditions of the Russian Old Believers; Ancient Tales of Chukotka, and Ancient Tales of Kamchatka.
