The three Democrats running unopposed in Juneau have scheduled a town hall meeting on June 27, during the same time slot as the first presidential debate. The debate will start at 5 p.m. on CNN, and the town hall starts at 5:30 p.m., Alaska time, at the Mendenhall Library in the Mendenhall Valley.
CNN has released more of the details of the debate, where for 90 minutes President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will face off.
CNN said it will supply the two with “mutable” microphones, so that if it’s one man’s turn to speak, the other cannot interrupt; their podium positions will be determined by a coin flip.
Neither candidate will be allowed to bring notes, but they will be given a pen, pad of paper, and a bottle of water, said CNN.
In May it was announced there will be no studio audience at the debate, which will be moderated by Jake Tapper and Dana Bush, news anchors for CNN.
The second debate that has been scheduled is Sept. 10, hosted by ABC News. The details of that debate have not been announced.
Juneau leans Democrat and none of the three lawmakers are at risk of losing their seats this November.
Attorney General Treg Taylor on Friday announced a lawsuit against Alaska Motor Home and its owners Peter and Cole Harkovitch, alleging they engaged in deceptive practices such as charging $2,500 damage deposits before consumers had picked up their RV, charging consumers taxes they did not owe, and forging a consumer’s signature on receipts to win a credit card chargeback dispute. The two are accused of taking deposits and then canceling the entire season as of Friday.
The Alaska Department of Law says that the Harkovitchs said they do not have the money to refund the deposits.
“This is a terrible situation” Taylor said. “Alaskan trips people have dreamed about for years are getting thrown into chaos. People depend on businesses to behave responsibly and there are really no words for how completely the Defendants have let down their customers and the whole state of Alaska.”
In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants repeatedly violated the injunction entered by the Anchorage Superior Court as part of a consent judgment that resolved an unfair trade practices lawsuit the Attorney General had brought against them in 2019.
In addition to a complaint seeking damages, penalties, and consumer restitution, the Attorney General is asking the Anchorage Superior Court to enter a temporary restraining order barring the Defendants from dissipating their assets and requiring them to immediately notify consumers if their reservations will not be fulfilled.
The Department of Law said it believes that the Defendants’ decision to cease operating is driven in part by the incarceration of Peter Harkovitch in Florida as he awaits trial on a charge of aggravated battery involving domestic violence, threatening a law enforcement officer, and other charges.
Consumers who have reservations with Alaska Motor Home are encouraged to file consumer complaints with the Attorney General’s Office. But the Attorney General’s Office cannot make any guarantees that consumer restitution will be possible in this matter. Consumers who paid in advance by credit card may wish to review their credit card rules and agreements to determine whether they may be eligible for a chargeback.
My last column, “A Single Right Step at a Time,” argued that the next right step for Alaska’s energy strategy is to secure the Cook Inlet natural gas supply. I explained that importing gas will increase emissions compared to burning locally supplied gas. In this column, I will show, by referencing numbers, that pushing to substitute oil and gas with renewables without a good plan is misguided. I start from the assumption that climate change is real even though I seriously doubt that the results will be apocalyptic for humanity, even if changes require adaptions.
To me, climate change has become a religion. In this religion, we have sin (greenhouse gas emissions), judgment (a future where Mother Nature exacts revenge), and penance (decarbonization). Unfortunately, this new religion lacks a salvation plan but offers an elusive path toward “greater harmony with nature.” None of this appears scientific or even logical. In fact, it seems pantheistic. Being a committed Christian, I lack headspace for a second religion, but I nonetheless believe in hard facts, numbers, and apprehending reality. My approach toward climate change is pragmatic and occasionally offensive to people who believe we are headed toward replicating the conditions found on Venus (an impossibility) while simultaneously thinking that they are saving the planet through objectively insignificant efforts.
Here is what I mean by this last statement. Man-made (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emissions account for approximately 40 billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions per year compared to approximately 700 billion tons from natural processes. Natural processes also absorb slightly more than 700 billion tons, thereby absorbing and sequestering around half of the anthropogenic emissions. If anthropogenic emissions were halved, atmospheric concentration of CO2 would stabilize. Today, atmospheric concentration is around 420 ppm, and getting there from preindustrial levels took about two centuries.
Forty billion metric tons sounds like a lot, but here is some perspective. The emissions of an average gasoline hybrid vehicle divided by the global emissions total results in a number that approximates zero, and the emissions of a large diesel pickup are about triple. Three times zero is still zero. Thus, in practical terms, the “greenie” who resents his neighbor for driving a pickup truck because he is “killing the planet” is either sorely misguided by his ideology or malevolent in spirit. Neither point of view is helpful.
Killing American industries does not help the planet. At present, the USA emits around 5 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions annually–about an eighth of the global total. If we greedy, polluting Americans took ourselves out of the equation, carbon emissions could only decrease by 12.5%, except they would not. Realistically, domestic industries would just move somewhere else where more lax regulations would increase pollution. This would impoverish Americans and allow others to prosper, something America’s enemies desire, but we should not.
One key difference between industrial energy supplies in the U.S. versus energy supplies in places like China or India is that the U.S. relies mostly on natural gas while other emerging economies rely extensively on coal. Natural gas, despite recent negativity, is far cleaner than coal. When burned, natural gas releases about 40% less CO2 than coal without producing much sulfur, ash, and other pollutants. In terms of methane emissions, natural gas is still cleaner because most natural gas leaks are fixable and have been steadily declining by systematically plugging leaks in piping infrastructure. Globally, coal mines release larger amounts of methane into the atmosphere, and those emissions are mostly uncontrolled even beyond the lifespans of those mines. Moreover, natural gas combustion processes in combined cycle plants can be 50% more efficient than coal combustion processes in boilers, and this results in over 60% reductions in CO2 emissions while reducing other air pollutants.
The solution to carbon emissions, we are told, is extensive build-out and reliance on renewable energy resources. However, Germany experimented and arguably failed with this model, now stuck with some of the highest energy costs in Europe and one of the highest carbon footprints because their non-renewable generation is dominated by coal. Moreover, Germany’s industrial base is in a state of decline. France, by comparison, relies extensively on nuclear power and has some of the cleanest and lowest cost energy in Europe. Similarly, Sweden and Norway rely extensively on hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and waste-to-energy solutions that keep their energy supplies in a state of abundance.
Lest I be misunderstood, I wholeheartedly support renewable resources wherever they make sense. Beyond a point of diminishing returns, they cease to make sense because expensive investment in long-term energy storage is required. Even then, wind and solar may not provide enough to meet everyone’s needs. Alaska’s most practical renewable energy resource is hydroelectric power, but the largest proposed hydroelectric project got axed about a decade ago over environmental concerns and project cost. Other hypothetical hydroelectric projects face similar issues. Another promising renewable resource is geothermal energy, but there are numerous engineering and monetary hurdles to overcome before this is viable.
The numbers do not lie: Alaska’s anthropogenic greenhouse gas footprint accounts for around 0.1% of the global total. No matter what Alaska does, the result will not change the global dynamic, but our decisions will have profound effects on our living conditions and our future. If Alaska chooses to go green, what will we accomplish and at what cost? Is our goal to make Alaska a “sacrificial lamb” on an altar of atonement to Mother Earth for no known sin, or do we want to design a strategic approach that will sustain our future? We struggle to commit to a plan. Simply repeating that the U.S. needs to go green, pursue renewables, and eliminate fossil fuels may sound good, but it denies reality and is not a sustainable plan.
Internationally, shall we cede our industrial base to other nations because we harbor guilt over emissions only to wake up to a worse nightmare? If the U.S. stopped producing oil, less regulated nations will increase their efforts to supply the deficit and get rich doing so, which will fuel more bad actions and outcomes. Not only will emissions increase, but global security will decrease, particularly for Western-aligned nations. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built in almost direct response to the OPEC Oil Embargo. We conveniently forget that these are the types of global issues that inform the debate about energy and climate policy; thus, we are prone to repeat the mistakes of the past. We indulge hyperbole and feed fears that promote unrealistic self-destructive imperatives. It’s almost as if we are trying to nail ourselves to a cross to prove how penitent we are.
Instead of indulging a pseudo-religious fantasy, we need to think critically and see the reality of our situation for what it is. Yes, the climate is changing, and unless the entire world reduces all greenhouse gas emissions in unison, our individual contributions are insignificant. For better or worse, it is what it is. The best we can do is plan with the resources we have to adapt to our situation and secure a future for ourselves and our children. If we choose poorly, we will pay dearly.
Nolan Willis is a lifelong Alaskan, a Bristol Bay Commercial Fisherman, a licensed Professional Electrical Engineer, and the current Chair of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Alaska Section. His work experience spans the worlds of utilities, energy, communications, and naval nuclear propulsion.
Reports indicate that America has a fatherhood crisis, which has created a culture of “floundering” young men.
Young men from non-intact families are more likely to end up in prison or jail, drop out of high school ornot graduate from college compared to young men raised by their married biological parents with their father living in the home, a new Institute for Family Studies report argues.
“What we see for young men today is a family-to-prison-or-college pipeline that is more likely to deliver boys from intact families towards college graduation and boys from non-intact families towards prison or jail,” the report states. “Young men raised by their two married, biological parents are almost 20 percentage points more likely to graduate college than end up in prison/jail.”
It points to research conducted by an economics professor and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research who found that declining marriage rates are “driving many of the country’s biggest economic problems.” The research found that young men who grew up in a married household with their two biological parents are more likely to graduate college, among other outcomes.
The IFS report also points to a Journal of Research on Adolescence report that found that adolescent boys are more likely to be incarcerated if they grew up in father-absent households.
It also analyzes federal data that shows that “young men raised by their two married, biological parents … are almost 20 percentage points more likely to graduate college than end up in prison/jail. Strikingly, this is the only group where graduating college is more likely than prison/jail. Meanwhile, the statistic flips for young men from non-intact families.”
According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, nearly 20 million American children live in homes where their biological fathers do not live.
“Fathers influence their children’s development in unique and meaningful ways. Positive father involvement is associated with better outcomes on nearly every measure of child well-being, including being less likely to abuse drugs or alcohol and more likely to graduate high school,” the organization says.
Another IFS report points to data showing that fatherless families are more likely to be poor and “boys raised without their father are much more likely to use drugs, engage in violent or criminal behavior, go to jail, and drop outof school,” citing state and federal data.
The National Fatherhood Initiative first began raising awareness about the benefits of father involvement in 1994, working to equip communities through a range of training programs and resources. Over the last 30 years, it’s distributed more than 11 million fatherhood skill-building resources and trained more than 45,000 individuals working with dads.
It’s also collaborated with more than 10,000 organizations in communities and created a comprehensive reference manual about the impact of fathers in “Father Facts.” Its evidence-based 24:7 Dadand InsideOut Dad programs are also used by organizations nationwide, including those receiving federal “responsible fatherhood” grants.
On the state level, Florida has taken the lead in addressing the issue. In 2020, its state legislature unanimously passed a bill to allocate $70 million to fund a range of support programs for fathers.
Children not having a father in their home “has a severe impact on children, and often leads to dropping out of school, crime and substance abuse,” Gov. Ron DeSantis said when signing the bill into law. “Incredibly, there are those who diminish the importance of fatherhood and the nuclear family,” but in Florida, “we are doing everything we can to support involved fatherhood.”
Former House Speaker Chris Sprowls said at the time that while Florida “cannot legislate fatherhood, accountability or character,” it could “provide support for fathers to equip and encourage them to take an active role in the lives of their children.”
Is this the year when women will be required to sign up for the Selective Service?
Since its creation by Congress in 1917, the United States Selective Service has registered all men ages 18 through 25. But the National Defense Authorization Act that has passed from the Senate Armed Services Committee and is heading to the Senate floor, has what has become a perennial proposal: Adding women to the draft list requirement.
The NDAA authorizes funding levels and provides authorities for the U.S. military and other critical defense priorities. On June 13, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 22-3 to advance the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2025, a proposal that would award $923.3 billion in taxpayer funds (and national borrowing from countries like Japan and China) for the nation’s defense. The legislation authorizes $878.4 billion for the Department of Defense and $33.4 billion for national security programs within the Department of Energy.
The Pentagon has not drafted anyone since the Vietnam War and there is no current movement to create a draft; the current armed forces for the country is made up of volunteered service members. Repeatedly in past years, attempts have been made to add women to the draft, as recently as in 2022. It’s been championed by Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a Democrat who is a graduate of West Point.
In 2017, Congress created a commission to study the matter of adding women to the draft. The commission’s final report, required by the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, recommended that women be drafted.
“This is a necessary and fair step, making it possible to draw on the talent of a unified Nation in a time of national emergency,” the 11 commissioners wrote in their final report.
The effort has failed in previous years’ versions of the NDAA, but this year, it looks like it may pass.
Although the amendment to sign women up for the draft was offered by Sen. Reed, he ended up voting against the bill because of an amendment to increase overall spending, which was offered by Sen. Roger Wicker, the committee’s top Republican. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, also voted against the spending bill.
Read the Selective Service history of legislation, lawsuits, and debate over women and the draft at this link.
The Senate version of the NDAA comes at the same time the House passed its $883.7 billion version of the bill, which has a number of Republican items contained in it, including an amendment that prohibits funds for executive orders on climate change, and defunding the Defense Department’s chief diversity office; eliminating the diversity, equity and inclusion-related offices inside the military; and instituting a hiring freeze on all jobs related to diversity, equity and inclusion.
The House version also has an amendment that bans drag shows and other drag-related events on military bases.
Haines Republican Bill Thomas announced on Friday that he is dropping from the House District 3 legislative race, leaving Democrat Rep. Andi Story of Juneau with an easy walk to victory with no opponent this year. All three Juneau candidates, including Democrats Sen. Jesse Kiehl and Rep. Sara Hannan, are now unopposed.
Thomas, now in his late 70s, is a former representative who served in the House from 2005 to 2013. He told friends and supporters that he just doesn’t have the time to campaign and also commercially fish this season.
His withdrawal has not yet been made official at the Alaska Public Offices Commission. The Division of Elections’ last day for candidates to withdraw from the Aug. 20 primary is June 29.
Across America, U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for painted rainbows on streets, and rainbow adorned literature and social media posts about LBGTQIA+ awareness during June, which by President Joe Biden’s order, is Pride Month: It’s a time to celebrate and broadcast that you have sex with someone or something other than the opposite sex human.
In the news from around the nation this month are items about kids and adults being arrested for having left skid marks on the rainbow flag crosswalks that are found on streets from places like Key West, Fla. to Juneau, Alaska. Skid markers are considered vandals of the government’s art project.
?#BREAKING: Police are actively investigating after someone driving a red pickup truck was doing burnouts and left tire marks on pride mural after it was installed three days ago ⁰⁰?#Huntington | #Westvirginia ⁰Currently, Law enforcement is currently investigating an… pic.twitter.com/kuBSLWeIY4
Now NASA is getting in on the rainbow flag action. In a social media post, it designed a “Pride flag” with the various colors that are now used to represent sexual preferences that are all and anything but heterosexual.
For the colors of its art project, NASA picked hues it has in its library from satellite images around the world and space. NASA went the extra step of adjusting the settings on its X/Twitter post so that the public is prohibited from commenting back to the government about its art project, for which the public is paying.
Screenshot
The cost to the public of the NASA Pride Month flag is minuscule, considering the $22 billion budget NASA has, but symbolic of the thousands of ways government grows into whatever container it is allowed to fill, no matter how far off-mission it may be.
A federal grand jury in Alaska returned an indictment charging an Anchorage man with allegedly making a false bomb threat at a federal building.
According to the Justice Department, on June 11, James Pearce, 40, falsely stated that he had placed explosive devices at the James Fitzgerald Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse and at six other locations around Anchorage.
“Pearce allegedly made these statements under circumstances where it may reasonably have been believed that the activity actually took place. He also allegedly made references to the terrorist groups Al-Qaeda and ISIS and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City,” said the Justice Department in a statement that came from the Anchorage office.
Pearce was arrested on-site, and the building was evacuated. He is charged with one count of a bomb hoax at a federal building, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1038(a)(1).
Pearce will appear before a U.S. magistrate at a later date and if convicted, faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The FBI Anchorage Field Office, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Anchorage Field Office and Homeland Security Investigation, Federal Protective Service are investigating the case. The Anchorage Police Department provided significant law enforcement support the day of the incident.
Pearce has other priors on his criminal record, including robbery and assault. In 2021, he was arrested for robbery involving a knife at the 13th Ave. and Gambell Street Carrs store. When police arrived, they questioned him and he became belligerent and then challenged them to shoot him. He was taken into custody and police found a large butcher knife on him, as well as a number of items stolen from the store.
In 2023, he was charged with criminal mischief and also removing his ankle monitor to escape detention. Although it was dismissed by the prosecutor he pled guilty to violating conditions of his release. There have been other arrests for assault and possession of illegal drugs by Pearce.
On a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday shot down a ban on bump stocks, which are gun attachments that make a semiautomatic weapon perform more like an automatic weapon, but with a key difference, which the court majority pointed out in its ruling.
The bump stock ban was put in place during the Trump Administration by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2018, following a mass shooting at a music festival in Las Vegas, in which the weapon used was enhanced by a bump stock attachment. Sixty people died and over 500 were injured, leading the AT to decide that the weapon was modified into a machine gun, which is banned or civilian use by Congress.
The decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said that ATF made an error of definition when it decided a federal ban on machine guns to include bump stocks.
The argument made by the plaintiffs was not a constitutional challenge based on the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms, but rather because of the ATF’s misunderstanding of how guns work.
The law defines a machine gun as any weapon that can fire more than one shot automatically and “by a single function of the trigger.”
Justice Thomas wrote that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks do not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” Instead, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and “allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger or another shot.
The bump stock reduces the time it takes by allowing the trigger to reset quickly and even if a semiautomatic rifle that is equipped with a bump stock fires more than one shot by a single pull of the trigger, it will not do so automatically, as the law clearly states. A shooter who wants to fire multiple shots using a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock, “must also actively maintain just the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip with his trigger hand,” Thomas wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito concurred in a written opinion, and said that although he could understand the intent, the court must follow the law set by Congress on automatic weapons. If Congress wants the law changed, it needs to revise the statute.
“The final rule clarifies that the definition of ‘machinegun’ in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter,” the explanation reads at the ATFf website.
Those who owned bump stocks were required to turn them in or destroy them.
“Current possessors of bump-stock-type devices must divest themselves of possession as of the effective date of the final rule (March 26, 2019),” ATF wrote. “One option is to destroy the device, and the final rule identifies possible methods of destruction, to include completely melting, shredding, or crushing the device. Any method of destruction must render the device incapable of being readily restored to function.”
All owners of gun stocks who ended up having to turn them in or destroy them were financially harmed by the rule that has now been reversed by the high court.
Dissenting were the three liberal women of the court: Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the dissenting opinion that warned of “deadly consequences.”
