July 18th, 2012

AK Politicians hide behind “the web”

So how do you email your elected reps in Washington? Simple answer is you don’t – because their email addresses are not available to voters in Alaska. I’d bet good money that some of the elites up here have email addresses for our elected reps; but we don’t. Instead all of the folks we elected to Federal positions use HTML forms for “citizen” inquires and comments. Just thinking that they (our elected officials) might be collecting data about the folks that ask them questions. So call me paranoid.

Lisa Murkowski

Mark Begich

Don Young

If you are a U.S. resident I’d suggest that you contact your elected representatives and ask them to give you their email address.


August 4th, 2010

Lisa Murkowski is proof we need Campaign Finance Reform

In a recent Anchorage Daily News “Alaska_Politics” post “Scott McAdams: it’s not just about Miller vs. Murkowski,” Sean Cockerham wrote:

    McAdams didn’t get into the race until June 1 and raised $9,175 between then and June 30, according to the latest campaign disclosures, leaving him with $4,533 in the bank after expenses. That compares with about $2.4 million for Murkowski and $125,000 for Miller. McAdams, though, doesn’t have a competitive primary to worry about next month.[emphasis mine]

Yes, you read that right, Lisa Murkowski currently has $2.4 million dollars to fend off her challengers. Now where do you think she got a pile of cash like that? Do you think it was given to her by the people she would like to continue representing in The U.S. Senate? Well of course it was, because most of the greenbacks at Lisa’s disposal didn’t come from Alaskans – the money was given to her by some very big corporations.

I suppose I could ask if you really think those companies that have given big bucks to Sen. Lisa Murkowski have the best interests of Alaskans in mind? But, I think the answer is obvious, there isn’t anything more I need to say.

UPDATE 01: So using the 2009 census figures for Alaska, 698,473 residents, that means that Lisa has about $36 / citizen to spend. More actually, if you narrow what she has to spend down to voters; because the census figures include children and other persons who are not eligible to vote. Amazing.

August 2nd, 2010

Link: Don Mitchell, native Alaskan’s and politics

I don’t agree with all of what Don Mitchell has to say here. But Donald Craig Mitchell has been around the block and in the thick of things up here for a long time. If you give two hoots about Alaska or the folks who can really claim to have lived here for any length of time (colonists don’t count – four generations don’t cut the mustard – sorry), Mitchell’s essay at The Mudflats is a must read.

June 12th, 2010

Tag cloud for Lisa Murkowski

How about: corporate whore, corporate prostitute, BP shill (or is it now British Petroleum shill?), colonial crony, corpracrat, petroleum princess, petroleum queen, or perhaps just SELL OUT?

I think Lisa Murkowski’s record is obvious – she’s not working for Alaskans and our Nation, she’s work’n for BP.


May 15th, 2010

Senator Lisa Murkowski – Polygamy

My Senator – Lisa Murkowski stood up against citizens to voice her support of corporations – she stood alone on the floor (business as usual):

Sen. Murkowki’s remarks:

Remarks by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) on Senate floor
May 13, 2010
From C-SPAN transcript

I do reserve the right to object, and i’d like to take just a few minutes here this
afternoon to explain why i will be objecting to this unanimous consent request.
Now, i’ve sat and listened to my three colleagues here and i have great empathy
for the concern that you share.
I share it as well.
I represent a state that was devastated about 20 years ago — a little more than
20 years ago when the exxon valdez hit the rocks.
We lived with oil on our beaches.
We know the economic impact.
We know the social economic that a spill can cause.
And we want to all be working together to ensure that whether it’s the devastation
that you see in your hotels in florida or whether it is — it is the loss to the
fishermen, that we ensure — that we ensure that those that are responsible pay
for the economic loss, for the damages that are incurred.
We’re with you on this.
But the reason i stand and object at this point in time is i don’t believe that taking
the amount of the cap, if you will, the liability cap from $75 million, where it is
currently, to a $10 billion in strict liability, 133 times the size of the current strict
liability limit, is where we need to be right now.
And i’m not just the only one that suggests that maybe we need to understand a
little bit better as to how much we might need to look at raising the limit.
The administration just yesterday in their oil spill legislative package have
proposed an effort — their proposal as a state would raise the cap liability for the
responsibility parties.
The administration looks forward to working with congress to develop levels for
the various caps that provide for substantial and proportional increases.
If the senator will just allow me just a couple minutes to conclude this i would be
happy to yield the floor.
I do think that we need to look at the liability cap and consider raising it.
But i think we need to be careful about unintended consequences, of picking a
number — $10 billion.
Let me just outline what i’m talking about when i say “unintended consequences.”
this has been named “the big oil bailout prevention liability act.” but i think you’ve
got some irony here in that what this would do is give all of america’s offshore oil
resources to the biggest of big oil.
It would be impossible or perhaps close to impossible for any energy company
that is smaller than the supermajors, smaller than the national oil companies, to
operate in the o.c.s.
$10 billion in strict liability would preclude their ability to obtain financing, to
obtain the bonds, or insurance for any exploration.
And look at who is producing in the offshore?
It’s the independents.
They produce two-thirds of natural gas, one-third of the oil.
So if we move forward with this in raising this liability cap to $10 billion, the only
companies that are going to be ail to self-insure against this level of strict liability
are the national oil companies, the supermajors — and we all know who they are -
- they’re the saudi, aramco, and of course british petroleum.
But it’s been mentioned a couple of different times now that we need to ensure
that b.p. as the responsible party pays, and the comment has been made, well,
$75 million just is not going to be sufficient.
I think what people need to remember is that $75 million — the cap on the strict
liability only applies to what the responsible parties have to pay back in the
context of o.p.a. — the oil pollution afnlgt the law expressly allows for unlimited
You’ve got unlimited damages in state courts where the compensatory, the
punitive damages are already being sawvment as we speak, sought.
As we speak, the Louisiana shrimpers filed a class action lawsuit against b.p.,
transocean, halliburton and cameron for their economic losses and alleging
negligence and seeking both economic and punitive damages.
I think state of florida on may 10 announced they filed a suit against b.p.
On may 12, the fishermen filed another such lawsuit in mississippi, recognizing
that again they have the ability to go after unlimited damages in those forums.
So again, mr. President, i am open to raising the liability cap, but we’ve got both
a directive from the white house and the american people — who i believe still
support offshore drilling — we need to adjust these liability caps in a way that
doesn’t give the biggest oil companies a monopoly over the entire o.c. svment
with that, mr. President, i would object to the unanimous consent at this time

October 8th, 2008

Senator Ted Stevens response to the bank “bailout”

On the eve of the Senate vote to allocate $780 BILLION to assist in bailing out banks and investment firms, after similar legislation was voted down in the House of Representatives I sent both Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski emails (via their websites) urging them to vote “no” on the legislation. Both Stevens and Murkowski voted “yeh.” Senator Stevens sent a response, I have yet to hear from Senator Murkowski. I note that Senator Stevens reply came from “donotreply@stevens.senate.gov” so I guess he does not want to discuss this matter further. I have included my response to Senator Stevens following his email.

Not one penny of our money should be given over to the banking or the insurance industry to cover their mistakes. I do not believe in Socialism for the Banks and Capitalism for the rest of us. To assist the banks now would make any arguments for a “free market” all that much more a farce. The administration of our President has already interfered with the market by restricting “short sellers.” As I’m sure you are aware short sellers play a vital roll in the market by devaluing overpriced stocks. The administration has “artificially,” in a way tjat would do the former USSR proud, by forcing market prices up without the checks provided by the short sellers.

I would urge you to vote “NO” on any authorization to assist the banking or the investment industries with Federal dollars in order to cover the losses that they themselves have incurred. There are a variety of solutions that the banks themselves could exercise if they really had to.


Dear xxxx [CityKid]:

Thanks for contacting me about your concerns for the Treasury proposal. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (H.R. 1424) – the result of negotiations between Congressional leaders, the President and members of his Administration – was passed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis and with my support by a vote of 74-25 on October 1st. The House of Representatives passed this bill by a vote of 263-171, and the President has signed it into law.

There was a great deal of misinformation about this legislation.

The Congress needed to take action to prevent this financial crisis from spreading throughout our economy, further threatening retirement accounts, saving plans for college educations, and a widespread freeze on the ability of individual Americans to obtain credit.

I am told that on September 29th, our Permanent Fund lost over a billion dollars. Without action our nation faced a further credit meltdown, which would mean Alaskans would be unable to borrow to finance a home, a car, or withdraw funds from savings accounts. Our seniors would lose the retirement income they rely on to pay monthly bills and retirement accounts for future retirees would plummet in value. In fact, I heard from several Alaskan seniors that they have already suffered substantial losses in retirement savings, and one who lost $40,000 after the House of Representatives failed to pass economic recovery legislation on September 29th.

Because I shared many of the concerns and misgivings expressed to me by Alaskans, I personally asked Senators negotiating this legislation to include provisions to limit executive compensation and bonuses in this stabilization bill. The bill we passed also requires increased review of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (new oversight), taxpayer protections, foreclosure prevention, and requires that every dollar repaid to the Treasury for assistance under the new law must be used by the Treasury to reduce the federal debt. The Senate also included provisions to temporarily increase the amount of Federal Deposit Insurance – the money in your bank account guaranteed by the government – from $100,000 to $250,000. (The $100,000 level was established in 1980. This is the equivalent of approximately $266,000 now.)

Attached are summaries of the Emergency Economic Stabilization bill prepared by the Senate Banking and Senate Budget Committees that explain these and other provisions in this legislation.

In addition, the bill contains several provisions that many Alaskans asked me to secure, and that had previously passed the Senate, but were defeated in the House. These include a provision that Alaskans receiving payments related to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill may treat the money as having been received over three years; an extension of the Secure Rural Schools Act, which funds rural schools and communities which were dependent on revenue from timber sales no longer available because of reduced opportunities to harvest timber from Federal forests; and, an extension of renewable energy tax credits. Also, the legislation provides a fix for middle-income Americans who would otherwise be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), a tax originally designed to affect only the wealthiest Americans.

Voting for this legislation was not an easy decision, but, in the final analysis I decided these provisions were important and passage of this bill was necessary to prevent the hardships that would otherwise have seriously affected Alaskans, our small businesses, and our nation’s and our State’s economic growth.

With best wishes,


U.S. Senator

Please Note: Do not reply to this email. If you would like to contact the Senator in reference to this or any other issue, please use our website’s contact form at http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.

Dear Senator Stevens,

Thank you for getting back to me. In all honesty, I am very sorry that both you and Sen. Murkowski chose to get behind this legislation. While you posit that credit for citizens might be threatened if you did not vote to spend $700 billion dollars of money that rightfully belongs to the citizens of the country (an amount nearly equal to recent DOD budgets) that is, quite simply, BUNK; reality lies elsewhere and I think you know that. It is the bank to bank credit markets that are in trouble and the legislation that you voted for will do little, if anything, to fix the problems at hand (a very “un-Alaskan” solution I think.) Quite simply, until the “banks” are forced to adopt accounting measures that reveal their true worth, our nations financial crisis, and indeed that of the world, will continue.

I am truly sorry that you chose to support this legislation. I don’t think most of your constituents have the same take on the crisis we now face as you do.

October 5th, 2006


“Eat the Rich” was a popular phrase among some in the 1960s and the phrase was revived on t-shirts worn by anarchists in the 1980s. While it’s certainly a bastardization of the phrase I can’t help but think, “Eat the Republicans.” Don’t worry though, there’s no need to dive into the “red state mavens” with a knife and fork because the Republicans are eating themselves. After a decade of heavy handed tactics keeping their cadre “in line” the Republican Party is crumbling in front off us. Consider, for example, Alaska’s U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s stated opposition to The “new” Patriot Act. Lisa’s “claimed” opposition to The Patriot Act went south when it came down to a vote in The Senate; the corporate media told us that senior Republican whips put the screws on Lisa. Our own Sarah Pallin has parlayed her censure by Randy Ruedrich and members of the Alaska Republican Caucus into her current position as the front running canidate for Alaska Governor, handing former U.S. Senator and current Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski, also a Republican, his head on a plate when she devoured him in our most recent primary elections. Now too, the National Republican Party elite are eating their own (Hastert, Foley, et al.) in a sacrificial bloodfest with the hope that voters will allow them to continue feeding at the corporate trough.

I am unabashedly giddy watching the Republicans eat themselves; I have not had this much fun as a voyeur since Nixon resigned (was almost impeached). A Republican friend of mine has suggested that I should not be so gleeful because of the levels of government that this has affected – nonsense I told him, it couldn’t happen to a worse bunch of swine. After destroying our countries reputation in the world, severely damaging our ability to really protect ourselves from threats (both foriegn and domestic), and raiding our treasury to line their own pockets by throwing tenderloins to their corporate cronies, most certainly at our expense, I hope that Republican pols pick their own bones clean so that we don’t have to pounce on them with steely knives and forks to keep them from rising up from the dead to do even more damage to the people of the United States and the world.

P.S. predictions: It will be found out that Republican Rep. Foley did more than send suggestive erotic messages about penises to 16 year old pages; and that many members of The House and Senate (Republicans and Democrats) have known what Foley was doing for quite some time. The Press will not report that others in The Congress also legislated standards for us that they did not feel they needed to follow.