Letters to the Editor December 15, 2003 I enjoyed Jeffrey Rogers' solomonic solution in "Confessions of a Serial Squirreler" (October '03) and think the same approach could be applied elsewhere. I'd suggest that fertility clinics and cloning labs ship their unused fertilized human eggs to right-to-lifers rather than destroying them. My only worry is that, in eighteen years, those still-frozen eggs would be voting Republican in Florida. Neal Matson Ray's View on the View "A sign of the times: wax poetic, and get bumped to page five." Ray Miss Priggy Replies I was flattered to make the pages of The Ester Republic—a publication that I wholeheartedly support. However, there was a gross misunderstanding that put me on the wrong side of the fence. My letter to the News-Miner that Carla objected to so vehemently was meant to be a protestation of the media's images and messages bombarding young women that serve to undermine their confidence in their talents if they don't look like the scantily-clad, air-brushed women of Cosmo, Teen, Playboy, etc. Then we wonder why our third-grade girls have eating disorders and want plastic surgery. I am by no means anti-porn. As a lactating mother, I know the power of breasts. And I routinely expose mine while breastfeeding in public (much to the abject horror of some Fred Meyers employees). But I'm annoyed that I live in a society where I can get paid to expose my breasts for a men's magazine (if men deem my breasts to be good enough), but I have to forcefully assert my right to breastfeed in public. I'm tired of the deluge of media stories and images of women whose attention and success is based on the androcentric merits of their bodies. And since you brought up Monica, I'm not proud to live in a culture where women hardly get attention for things more worthy than whether or not they had sexual relations with politicians. In fact, Carla is just the type of Alaskan woman I want to see featured on the front page of the News-Miner—a talented writer who stands up for women without bringing her breasts into the equation. I was appalled at Carla's implication that I, or even a true Bush-loving rightie for that matter, would ever condone female suicide bombers. I've spent time working in eastern Turkey and had to make some tough decisions about veils. The Middle East doesn't need G-strings, they need more women like the recent Iranian Nobel Peace Price laureate. So Carla, please forgive my imperfect and apparently failed attempt at women's activism, but just as I refuse to wear a veil in the Middle East, so too I refuse to wear stiletto heels in the U.S. Keep up the fight, Livestock A few of your readers were kind enough to comment about my letter in a previous issue of The Ester Republic regarding the remarkable candor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in acknowledging their tacit ownership of Alaska. I was thus inspired to note another example of surprising honesty that I encountered recently in the more massy media—in this case, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. The editorial in the 8 December issue of that paper discussed and fairly well dismissed the indignation of various Outside groups, such as Friends of Animals, about the newly permitted aerial hunting of wolves in the McGrath area. The writer praised the firmness of the Game Board, the governor, and the various bureaucrats involved in standing firm against the save-the-wolves gang. “It’s frustrating being viewed as the national zoo,” he went on. “What non-Alaskans passing judgment on Alaska policies should realize is that Alaskans view moose and caribou as livestock.” We do? Once I got over my surprise at learning how I supposedly viewed those big animals, I recognized that this perception explained a great deal about attitudes that had previously mystified me. Alaskans don’t have wildlife, they have meat on the hoof, plus a few inedible or ignorable items such as chickadees and what they must consider badly behaved shoppers who cut into line, such as wolves and bears. When a real Alaskan sees a good duck marsh, he should think, “Great! Safeway but with shotguns!” Naturally, I was impressed with the honesty of the editorial writer and the governor’s spokesman whom he quoted. It’s tough to stand firm when you’re on such politically, aesthetically, and scientifically shaky ground, but by golly, they’ll do it. The view from the top in Alaska isn’t of wilderness, it’s of stockyards in need of better management. No wonder the population of McGrath thinks it deserves a good supply of moose. The residents must see themselves precisely as Montana sheepherders see themselves: When a wolf takes their livestock, they’re owed recompense from the damnfool gummint because that was their property the gummint-protected varmint et. So for the rest of us (perhaps not quite so real-Alaskan) Alaskans to cavil at subsidizing McGrath’s moose supply (to the tune so far of better than $100,000) is as silly as objecting to any other farm subsidy or rancher recompense—or any other form of welfare, for that matter. It’s all part of the American thirst for social justice, isn’t it? Now, according to state biologists, the predator control program cost so far about $1300 per moose calf saved; I wonder how much it would cost Kenai, say, to ship a roadkill moose to McGrath? The carcasses are salvaged for charity anyhow, so why not feed McGrath, clean up Southcentral, and subsidize the entrepreneurial small air carriers to boot? Really, if we’re talking livestock, a pickup truck is a reasonable, if expensive, mode of slaughter. Extraneous considerations like “fair chase” and “sportsmanship” should be dropped in any debate on predator control or what Outsiders call big game. They’re pointless frills when it’s a matter of putting our livestock’s meat on the table. What farmer would give Ol’ Bossy a head start when the butcher’s van pulls into the driveway? No one would expect him to, either. The only concern should be maximum sustainable yield—limitations on method, timing, and so forth are simply nods to those Outsiders who think hunting is either a nasty business or a sport. I note, with admiration for his swift logic, the suggestion of CP McRoy, made at the Eagle a few evenings back: “McGrath should just cut out the middle man and go for aerial moose hunting.” Why not? The Humane Society has concerns about cruel methods of killing, but even they admit that livestock does get killed. An A-47 fired from a SuperCub should be seen as no more cruel than a .30-06 fired from a prone position. The editorial writer went on to assert, “Alaskans at various levels have decided that this latest wolf-control program is called for to preserve some of that livestock.” Again, I can only admire his honesty in bringing the livestock argument out of the closet, so to speak, but am left wondering at what levels were the Alaskans who voted—twice—to ban shooting wolves from airplanes. Respectfully, Vote No I urge all registered voters to VOTE NO in the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program special election scheduled for January 27, 2004. While the I/M program needs modification, it is more likely to be improved if it remains under local borough management. If the I/M program is repealed by the election then regulation of emissions would most likely be turned over to a State of Alaska program which may become more expensive than our current system. The State of Alaska Department of Transportation requires an I/M test before registering a vehicle, and if this is unavailable locally, then Fairbanks residents during the interim would have to drive to Anchorage or some other location to obtain the certificate before registering a vehicle. A NO vote will allow for the continuation of local control of the I/M program. Increased violations of the Federal Clean Air Act could result in the loss of an estimated $300,000,000 in Federal Highway funding per year. Congress passed the Federal Clean Air in 1970 and in 1971 the standard for carbon monoxide was set at 9ppm over an eight-hour period. This level was determined after reviewing recommendations by medical doctors and air quality scientists. Nine parts per million is considered the maximum amount of carbon monoxide that will not have ill effects on our most vulnerable citizens, the elderly, the young, and the unborn. During an inversion, carbon monoxide concentrations can build up to extremely high levels until a wind comes along and mixes the air which dilutes the pollutants to acceptable levels. The City of Fairbanks is located in a bowl-like valley that tends to concentrate pollutants in the air when a temperature inversion takes place. On still winter days cold air settles in the valley bottom under an overlying layer of warmer air which traps the products of combustion that come from the tailpipes of our automobiles, buses, and trucks along with the emissions from the power plants and our home furnaces and wood stoves. This air is not healthy to breathe. Rather than handing the local I/M program over to the State of Alaska, let's get together and work out an improved system that will both clean the air and save money for all residents of the Fairbanks North Star Borough. Mike Musick
| ||
 | | |
