Comments by Taters
Page 1 of 4 | Next
Posted on August 30 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A heartbeat away from the Presidency? Commander-in-Chief? Able to deal effectively with Putin and Hu Jintao? Give me a break!
I guess she might not do any worse than Duhbya but he had Cheney to tell him what to do.
Posted on August 29 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So the next time anyone wants to go off about the Feds and State owning too much of Alaska just remember; the ultimate lock-up of land is private property.
Posted on August 29 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And I thought she was doing so well. What a waste.
Posted on August 17 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes Dermont,
You can act all insulted that one of us might suggest money as a motive but you still avoid the actual point of the vote. Your wife is correct.
Vote to protect the land and water. Mining interests have been getting away with OUR minerals for next to nothing and leaving a mess in many cases for us tax-payers to either live with or clean up for decades.
Look at Google Earth and see what a nice job Fort Knox has done with what used to be a good local area to use for hiking, biking, and snowmachining. Now it's a huge scar and a toxic looking lake and when the gold is gone I for one expect the final disposition of the land to be less than wonderful.
Every step that makes it harder for a mining company to make and leave a mess is a good thing I'd say. If it costs too much to do it right then maybe it shouldn't be done at all.
I don't give a damn who is funding either argument and I expect in this day and age there will be half-truths and outright lies presented by both sides, so vote YES and be done with it.
On Alaskans deserve to know who is bankrolling initiative on mining regulations
Posted on July 31 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I find myself wondering just how much the Feds DIDN'T find. Was this the one and only transgression Uncle Ted made or was it discovered only because the Veco Boys gave him up.
How many other "gifts" were there over the last 40 years?
Posted on July 22 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yo James,
I had to go to work so couldn't respond in a timely manner.
Why should Fred's being open to the public make a bit of difference?
Under the Taters Plan everyone would have the same opportunity and motivation to get their electrical usage down. If Fred's cuts electrical usage, they save money and make more profit or are able to cut prices.
If Fort Knox or any of the other large users want to save some money they can figure out how to cut their usage just like a lot of us little guys have done.
The issue is that 45% of our power is generated from oil and while I don't know their actual usage, the "large general users" are listed in GVEA's 2007 annual report as paying 58.92% of the revenue. This may not be entirely accurate but if the (few)large users cause us to use the expensive oil-fired turbines than maybe they should be the ones to buy the most expensive electricity.
If Ft. Knox, Ft Greely (and the anti-missile missiles), Pogo Mine, and a few others were not using such large amounts of power, we wouldn't be running those turbines and our costs would be way lower.
As the rate structure is set now, large general users pay a far lower rate than the rest of us and without knowing the particulars I assume it would take some action by the legislature or the courts to make changes which would allow GVEA to set a different structure. Maybe somebody else out there in reader-land knows the answer.
All I know is that in this day of soaring fuel costs and the coming drop in world-wide production of conventional oil we ALL need to conserve and if the biggest users get the cheapest electricity what motivates them to cut usage?
Posted on July 22 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd like to suggest a whole new rate structure. Under the "Taters Plan" the largest users of electricity would pay the most per kWh and the smallest users would get the lowest rate.
Now, you may think that sounds un-fair until you look into where our electricity comes from. With North Pole burning a reported 3,500 gallons of oil every hour that is the real driving force behind the high prices. If I'm not mistaken, if we dropped the several largest users from the system, we could get by without North Pole much of the time (like we used to do most of the time). So, if it's the large users of power who are causing the high expense plant to be run than maybe they should pay for that "expensive" power and let the rest of us co-op owners pay a more reasonable rate.
Does this make sense to anybody out there or am I just an aging hippie freak with commie leanings?
Posted on July 20 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Every buyer out there needs to pay at least 20% less than the asking price for a home. It's your duty as a citizen! Help us out a little here and get those assessments down!
Page 1 of 4 | Next
Posted on August 30 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's right Dermot. She seems like a nice person who has an easy time in a State-full of petro-dollars but McCain might not last a week and then what happens?
Oh, and I really like the attacks on the News-Miner for being too liberal. Great stuff there! I haven't laughed so hard all day. Oh yeah, I just got up.
On Palin unqualified to serve as vice president