First, two big THUMBS UP to Julia O’Malley for a couple of her recent columns. Julia has quickly become an excellent columnist for the Daily News and one of the newspaper’s remaining great strengths as it continues its regrettable shrinkage. Two recent commentaries are especially delightful – and provocative – both for their content and style. Julia’s Jan. 17 discussion of the pollution that we Anchorage residents dump into Cook Inlet had me chuckling as she talked about dog doo, taking “a little trip down the drain,” and all those “floaties,” “sinkies” and “lurkers” that the guys at the Point Woronzof treatment plant deal with daily. But the topic, and the issues she raises in “Next time you flush, think about where it goes” are ones that Anchorage residents – and our political leaders – need to take far more seriously than we have been doing.

Others have written recently about the need to upgrade the John. M Asplund Wastewater Treatment Plant (its official name), including Toby Smith, executive director of the Alaska Center for the Environment, who wrote an opinion piece, “Time for a Wastewater Upgrade,” for the Alaska Dispatch last October. Professor Alan Boraas followed up Smith’s commentary with one in the ADN’s editorial section on Dec. 12, “Sewage ‘treatment’ threatens belugas.” Both are worth reading and make their point. But Julia’s approach spells out the situation in a way that anyone who uses a toilet or sink can understand and appreciate. I mean how many of us really think much about what happens to the nasty stuff we flush down our drains?

It really is something of a fantasy to think all our bodily wastes and chemicals and other pollutants simply disappear and are somehow “treated” properly by an outdated system, so they don’t harm Cook Inlet or its inhabitants. The sad thing is, a lot of people probably don’t even care. But as Julia and the other two commentators point out, it’s time to reconsider what harm we may be doing to Cook Inlet’s belugas, salmon, halibut, and other life forms, and make some changes.

Kudos to Julia too for “Dear feds: We loathe you, Please send money.” Like Julia, I have long been perturbed by Alaskans who so loudly bemoan “the feds” and their interference in our so-called independent, self-sufficient lifestyles, even as those same Alaskans constantly seek government handouts and praise our politicians who bring home all that federal bacon. What a bunch of hypocrites! One of the great things about Julia’s column is that she gets specific. Both the tone and content of the piece are perfect.

So, now for a couple of big THUMBS DOWN, first to Sen. Lisa Murkowski for behaving more like a lobbyist than a senator, as she continues her misguided push to keep the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, refineries, manufacturers, and other polluters. I have written about her early efforts in a previous posting so I won’t go into more detail here, but I sure wish Lisa would return to her more moderate ways (she once was a moderate, wasn’t she?) and stop working so hard on behalf of corporate America, which already has way too much pull in Congress.

That leads me to my second THUMBS DOWN, to the Supreme Court’s conservative block, which has given unprecedented rights to corporations (and, yes, unions too) in its recent ruling on “Citizens United v. FEC.” Talk about hypocrisy. Whatever happened to the supposed commitment of Chief Justice John Roberts and other conservatives on the court to “judicial restraint” and respect for precedent? As noted in one newspaper report, before last week’s vote, Roberts “had espoused narrow rulings whenever possible and had pledged to stick with the court’s precedents.” But he and his allies apparently forgot their principles when it came to giving corporations the right to spend freely in elections and, through their spending, excessively influence elections.

It’s curious how responses to the court’s decision have played out. I remain astounded that people – almost all of them conservatives, that I can tell – can claim this decision is a victory for the First Amendment. In what fashion does the First Amendment protect corporate rights? The very idea that corporations should have the same rights as individuals seems outrageously loony.

As others (far more knowledgeable in these matters than me) have pointed out, the Supreme Court’s conservative block has overturned more than 100 years of precedent – and statutes, at both the state and federal level – while giving corporations the go-ahead to spend all the money it wants to influence – or more bluntly put, to attempt to buy – elections.

Dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens put it well, while calling the decision “a radical change in the law . . . that dramatically enhances the ability of corporations and unions – and the narrow interests they represent – in determining who will hold public office.” Stevens is hardly alone in fearing that this ruling “will cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.”

Only time will tell if such fears will be realized, but however it plays out, the Supreme Court’s conservative block has done America’s voters a grave injustice, by favoring corporate powers and influence over individual rights.