Skip to main content

I really hate to say this but...

...maybe these people should move.

And I'm serious that I hate to say it. If I could move home again and make a living there I would do it. I understand the pull of geology and culture. Having to be elsewhere in order to pay the bills sucks. In any case, it is a trade-off that a whole lot of people make.

A better solution would be economic development but I can't even think of what to suggest. Other than fishing or drilling for oil what is there? The same things that make groceries and gas expensive make shipping anything *out* expensive as well. But maybe someone can think of a good idea or two.

Anyhow, bravo to those who have refused Citgo money. I hope someone else steps in to make up the difference. Donating insulation and building supplies doesn't sound like a bad idea either, if the homes are as flimsy as the article says. It does sound like a really horrible place to live, though. Someone please tell me the summer is glorious or the aurora or *something*.

Comments

Anonymous said…
My Brother The Fed lives in Anchorage with his wife and two soon-to-be-college-bound kids.

1. Each Alaskan resident is entitled to bag a moose per year for the larder -- and, even with two teenagers, an Alaskan moose will provide sufficient protein to keep the wolf from the door (although there are lots of them up there, too).

2. Each Alaskan family shares in the state's take of oil revenues from the North Slope.

3. The scenery is spectacular, the mosquitoes are gigantic, and the aurora is mesmerizing.

4. Other than that, you're absolutely right -- send insulation. Lots of it...
Synova said…
:-)

Hey, thanks for commenting!

I grew up in Minnesota, which is cold enough.

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...