Helicopters over Humboldt: a retrospective interview

Growing up in suburban Southern California, Humboldt County seemed like a completely different world. In some ways, I think it probably is. But stories about Humboldt—stories about environmental activists, cannabis cultivation, and, of course, Bigfoot—have always fascinated me. From bitter campus protests to its history as a major logging hub, Humboldt has been a major talking point on this blog for years. I wanted to contribute something to the already robust list of stories, but there was a problem: I have never been to Humboldt, and I don't have any stories about it!

My solution was to interview a friend, "M." He grew up at the end of a dirt road, on 44 acres of land ~15 minutes from the town of Redway. Initially, our conversation was general—we discussed his upbringing in the '80s and '90s and rural life in Southern Humboldt. But the piece of the story we kept coming back to (perhaps unsurprisingly) was marijuana. What M ultimately chose to share was, essentially, a brief oral history of cannabis cultivation in Southern Humboldt.

It started, of course, with the hippies. According to M, they were "mostly college-educated idealists, looking to live off the land." Most were looking for tranquility, self-sufficiency, an escape from city living. In rural Southern Humboldt, "they found it for cheap." These initial community members were "rich in natural resources, but not in money." There was an issue, though—In Southern Humboldt, you can't grow much. "It's an interesting landscape for agriculture. Most of it is... these vast conifer forests. It's not really agricultural land."

 Enter the Marijuana plant. 

"Cannabis, during those early years, was something that [people] perhaps stumbled upon as a means of generating income for their community." By the time M was born, it had blossomed into a "spectrum of growers." On the one hand, there were "those that were fully in it, willing to grow more, risk jailtime, and supply cities that were farther away." For them, cannabis was a livelihood. 

On the other hand, "you had the mom-and-pop operations that were just a small greenhouse, or a few plants hidden in the woods." For them, cannabis was just "used to supplement income from whatever job they had in the local community." By the '80s and '90s, both groups were facing serious challenges from local, state, and federal law enforcement.

At the heart of our conversation was a story about Vietnam-era helicopters flying low across the treetops around his home. 

You could hear them coming from miles away—and we'd all run out into the yard... to have that experience; ok, we're on a homestead, living in nature, on a homestead off the grid; to have that seclusion, that self sufficiency, and then to hear an army helicopter disrupt the tranquility was pretty strange...

This profound juxtaposition was the result of CAMP: the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting. Managed by the California Department of Justice, CAMP united local, state, and federal agencies in a concerted effort to eradicate illegal marijuana grow operations all over the State of California. Launched in 1983, CAMP activity escalated throughout the 90s. 

In Northern California, CAMP culminated in Summer 1990 with operation Green Sweep. During that operation, the federal government deployed active-duty troops to Southern Humboldt in a drastic escalation of previous drug-policing methods. The operation was met with large-scale protests, some of which became violent. According to M, the "community felt it was being targeted and really terrorized by this government-funded operation." 

Despite its attempts at deterrence, M felt CAMP only increased profits for determined growers: 

when you have these aggressive tactics, the beneficiaries are the ones that are able to continue [growing]. If you increase the focus and the efforts to disrupt the exchange of product... you increase the price. That's what happened: you had cannabis that wasn't initially of significant value, [skyrocketing] to four or five thousand dollars a pound. There were many in the community that felt the reward was worth the risk: friends and neighbors that either faced jailtime or were impacted by friends and family getting locked up for cultivation...

M recalled one community member, busted with what was later described as "a handful of sprouts. They slapped a 5-year sentence on him. He had a young daughter. But he knew the risks..." 

Sometimes, the dangers went beyond jail time. 

As far as the actual exchange of the product for cash, I've heard there were buyers that would come up from the city; they would go up to someone's house, and you would hope to establish some kind of rapport and trust. 

But finding a buyer, at least at first, entailed "meeting at the bottom of a dirt road, and hoping for the best." For one of M's high school classmates, this dynamic proved deadly. "[He] became affiliated with some buyers from the Bay Area... perhaps he didn't put a lot of trust in them. They came up and robbed him, he resisted, and they shot him. He was 17 or 18." 

"It's interesting," M remarked towards the end of our conversation, "to return to that time period and compare it to the traditional American high school experience." 

I am inclined to agree. 

M now works in Portland, Oregon as a registered nurse. When asked if he ever saw himself settling down back in Humboldt, he responded with a simple "no," adding briefly that "too much has changed."

New Hampshire (once again) tries to restrict student voting (Part II): Voting rights prevail...for now

This is Part II in my look at New Hampshire's history of attempting to disenfranchise college student voters. For Part I, which provides essential background information, please click here.

1972 was a pivotal year in American history:  Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden sought political office for the first time, the Watergate break-ins began the unraveling of a presidency, and George McGovern's landslide defeat arguably nudged the Democratic Party to the right for decades. It was also a year of landmark legislation, including the Clean Water Act and Title IX, setting in motion changes that still shape American life today.

But even as the country grappled with sweeping national changes, some of the most immediate battles over democracy and civil rights were playing out at the local level, including in New Hampshire, where a fundamental question about who could vote loomed over the state's critical First in the Nation primary.

On January 26th, New Hampshire Attorney General Warren Rudman and the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union announced an imperfect compromise that did not fully address the residency problem but also did not actively disenfranchise college students. In essence, the state would allow college students to vote, as long as they claim to intend to remain in New Hampshire indefinitely. No further inquiry would be made, and it would be assumed that the student was answering the question in good faith. If a student said that they were planning to move away at any time, they would be denied the right to vote. Judge Hugh Bownes of the United States District Court for New Hampshire signed the compromise.  

That day's edition of the Valley News asked a very obvious question, does this apply to non-college student New Hampshire residents who declare an intent to leave at a certain time? If a person moves to New Hampshire to work for a limited duration, which could be years, and plans to return to the place from which they moved, they (in theory) would be unable to vote in any location. This question would remain unanswered.

Not surprisingly, this did not end the saga, and another lawsuit was filed just a month later by a Dartmouth College student who was denied the right to vote because of his stated intent to move back to Hawaii after graduation. Within a week of the lawsuit being filed, Bownes issued a temporary injunction that would allow the student to register to vote in the New Hampshire Presidential primary. 

The final resolution in this case would come in June when the District Court decided Newburgh v. Peterson where the judges found that the indefinite residency question was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

In their opinion, the judges reckoned with the question that the Valley News had asked which dealt with this compromise's application to non-college students. 

On the one hand, New Hampshire excludes from the franchise a student candid enough to say that he intends to move on after graduation, a newly-arrived executive with a firm intention to retire to his Florida cottage at age 65, a hospital intern or resident with a career plan that gives him two or three years in New Hampshire, a construction worker on a long but time-limited job, an industrial or government trainee working up a precise career ladder, a research contractor on a project with a deadline, a city manager hired for a term, a military person on a term of duty, a hospital patient with a hoped-for goal of discharge. On the other hand, those persons who are less precise in their planning or less confident that their plans will be realized at a time certain are allowed to vote.

* * *  

In this day of widespread planning for change of scene and occupation we cannot see that a requirement of permanent or indefinite intention to stay in one place is relevant to responsible citizenship. Or, to state it legally, the state has not shown that the indefinite intention requirement is necessary to serve a compelling interest.

The judges believed that the compromise had disenfranchised a wider swath of the population than just college students and that it represented an outdated way of thinking about residency. The Fourteenth Amendment prevailed, and this compromise (and the 19th century New Hampshire residency law) fell.

The immediate fire was out, and students could now vote in New Hampshire.

However, as we would learn in the coming decades, while the fire was out, its embers remained. Join me for Part III, in which we look at the contemporary struggles and the re-emergence of this issue in the 21st century. 

---

Look Ahead!

Part III will cover more contemporary battles, including the rise of voter ID and its usage as a vehicle to suppress the student vote.

Part IV will cover the Chris Sununu era and the battle over college student voting in the late 2010s.

Part V will wrap it all up and talk about the current struggle.  

Japan erects--overnight--a 3-D printed train station for a rural community

Kiuko Notoya recently reported in the New York Times about the overnight construction of a train station in rural western Japan.  The components were 3-D printed elsewhere.  According to the West Japan Railway Company that serves this place, Hatsushima (near Arida, in Wakayama prefecture) building a station the old-fashioned way would have cost twice as much and taken more than two months.  The station is served by one train line, which runs between one and three times per hour; it serves about 530 riders each day. The new train station, which looks more like a shed or a shelter, was erected between the time the last train ran at 11:57 pm one evening and the first train train the next morning at 5:45 am.  The 100 square foot building is described as "a minimalistic, white building, featuring designs that include a mandarin orange and a scabbardfish, specialties of Arida."

Notoya writes:  

In the six hours between the departure of the night’s last train and the arrival of the morning’s first one, workers in rural Japan built an entirely new train station. It will replace a significantly bigger wooden structure that has served commuters in this remote community for over 75 years.

* * * 

As Japan’s population ages and its work force shrinks, the maintenance of railway infrastructure, including outdated station buildings, is a growing issue for railway operators. Rural stations with dwindling numbers of users have posed a particular challenge. 

The NYT story, which includes several short videos of the production process for the train station parts and the building's erection, is worth a read in its entirety.   

Rural schools in Texas, Arkansas and elsewhere threatened by vouchers that divert tax dollars to private schools

Jasper School District Truck, Jasper, Arkansas, February 2025
The Jasper District includes schools in Kingston (neighboring Madison County)
and Oark (neighboring Johnson County).  
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2025

The Texas House of Representatives voted this week to create "one of the largest taxpayer-funded school voucher programs," which the New York Times characterized as "a hard-fought victory for private school choice activists as they turn their attention to a nationwide voucher push."

I and students in the Law and Rural Livelihoods course have previously written a number of blog posts here about this issue in the context of Texas and other states, with particular concern for the consequences for rural schools. Those concerns were also called out this week by Dallas-area Democratic Representative Chris Turner, who commented that the measure “will harm students with disabilities. It will harm rural students.”  He also expressed concern that it will effectively "resegregate education."  

The New York Times provides this further context on this week's vote, including attention to the rural angle: 

[S]ome Democrats argued that what they called a “voucher scam” was a giveaway to parents who have already opted out of public education.

* * * 

Vouchers have been a priority for [Governor Greg] Abbott for several years. But strong resistance from Democrats and some rural Republicans in the Texas House — who feared the program would undercut their local schools — prevented it from becoming law.

* * * 

There has often been resistance to private school vouchers in conservative rural regions, where few private schools exist and public school districts are sometimes a county’s largest employer.

That dynamic was further documented in the Texas Monthly story that is the focus of this mid-2023 post.  The NY Times coverage of events in Texas this week continues:   

But the growth of alternative models for education has convinced some policymakers that rural students will have more options than they would have in the past. Those models include for-profit virtual schools and microschools, which are often run by a single educator working out of a home or a rented space.

Meanwhile, in Texas' neighbor to the northeast, Arkansas-Democrat Gazette columnist Rex Nelson has written a few pieces on that state's voucher scheme, part of the LEARNS Act that Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law in 2023.  In a March 23, 2025 column titled "An Education Debacle," Nelson begins by couching what is at stake for rural schools in terms of rural population loss and the collapse of communities associated with the loss of a local school.  He leads with the illustration of Lake View, in Phillips County, in the Mississippi Delta region.  Nelson observes that the town's population dropped from 609 in the 1980 census to 327 in 2020, a rate of loss faster than most places in the nation.  He also points out that Lake View is one of just a few incorporated cities in Arkansas where the population is more than 90% Black.   

But Nelson leads with Lake View for a reason in addition to its population loss.  He writes: 

Lake View became a household term in Arkansas as a case named Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee wound its way through the courts. When the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in November 2002 that the state's system of funding public education was unconstitutional, it in essence said this: The child who lives at Lake View deserves the same educational opportunities as a child living in Bentonville.

Nelson names Bentonville, in particular, because it is one of the wealthiest communities in the state.  It has become affluent not least because it is the home of Walmart and one of the richest families in the nation, the Waltons. 

Eventually, Nelson uses his column to dig into Governor Sanders.  This is an especially interesting turn since Nelson previously worked for her father, Mike Huckabee, when Hucakbee was the state's governor.  This column is such a straight-talking doozie that I'm going to indulge myself a long quote from it.  

In 2022, Arkansas voters elected a young political operative named Sarah Sanders governor. Sanders had achieved minor fame in the MAGA movement for serving as Donald Trump's press secretary and lying to the media on Trump's behalf. She raised money from MAGA cultists across the country... 

Though she remained far more interested in Washington politics than Arkansas public policy, Sanders took office in January 2023. Indebted to her out-of-state funders, she needed to produce what they would consider "wins." One such win would be a statewide school voucher program under which taxpayers would foot part of the bill for children attending private schools.

The bill was based on a template from out-of-state organizations. There was little input from teachers and administrators in Arkansas.

Until this year, bills promoting vouchers in Texas consistently were defeated by a coalition of urban Democrats and rural Republicans. Rural Republicans realized such a scheme would be devastating for their public school districts.

Sanders faced no such problem in a state where GOP legislators are scared of their own shadows. They fear those out-of-state MAGA adherents will fund primary opponents. They asked no questions and went along with the voucher plan, often against the advice of superintendents and teachers back home.

I waited two years before writing about the voucher scheme. I don't like knee-jerk reactions to calls for school reform. I've been a strong supporter of public charter schools. But after two years, the picture is becoming clear. A statewide voucher system doesn't improve outcomes in a poor rural state such as Arkansas. In fact, it's nothing short of a debacle.  (emphasis added)

It's also unconstitutional under the reasoning of the Lake View ruling. The state must give the same support to that child in Lake View as a child in Bentonville. In much of Arkansas, there are no close private schools that offer a good education.

A few days after this column appeared, the Democrat-Gazette published a story headlined, "Arkansas sees more than 33,000 students applying for next school year’s vouchers."  The lengthy story by Lena Miano leads with this further background and data breakdown: 

Created through the LEARNS Act of 2023, the Education Freedom Account program provides state funding for private and home school costs and was gradually rolled out over three years, with next fall marking the first time vouchers are available to all school-age children in the state.

The window, which opened on March 3 and closed Sunday, saw 23,357 students selecting private schools while the remaining 10,393 applicants indicated homeschooling as their choice for next school year,

The story uses the word "rural" only once, in this quote from Representative Jim Wooten of Beebe, who has proposed a bill requiring that private schools participating in the voucher program must comply with the same state laws and Arkansas Department of Education reporting requirements as public schools.  He states that he does not oppose private schools, but that "the voucher program is 'damaging, hurtful and harmful to public education,' particularly in smaller, rural parts of the state."

Then, on March 30, 2025, Nelson published, "Welfare for the rich," from which I drew this excerpt.  As you'll see Nelson ultimately returns to the matter with which he led in the prior week's column--the matter of rural decline: 

As one longtime educator told me: "You can pretty well paint the word 'Christian' on the side of a barn, call it a school and start collecting state money. It's troubling."

An Arkansas historian I know was even more frank, calling the voucher program "the greatest grift in the history of Arkansas, and that's saying something given the history of this state."

Rural Arkansans don't have the opportunity that my wife and I had because we happened to live in Arkansas' largest city. Either there are no private schools close, or the ones that are close don't shine academically.

That reminds me of this bit from the Miano story above, out of Ash Flat, Arkansas, population 1,109.  There, the voucher program has allowed The Underwood Branch Homeschool Cooperative "to provide personalized, special education services to dozens of homeschooled students this year."  I guess this is what the New York Times calls a "microschool" in its coverage, quoted above.  The Miano story in the Democrat-Gazette continues:  

The state's program has "really impacted us, just being able to let families afford to be able to do what we're doing -- and then also on the business end, we are able to provide it because without it, there's just no way that we could do it," [the founder] said, adding that the voucher program has gone toward building costs, tuition, therapy services and more her team offers.

The Ash Flat cooperative, which welcomed its first students this fall, now serves 45 students--35 of which are voucher program participants -- and has 90 K-12 grade students on a waitlist.

Tuition is $10,000 per year, with the vouchers covering just over $6,800 of that and financial aid options provided by the cooperative offered for families who can't afford to pay the remaining costs, Horton said.

The cooperative team expects to move from its current, temporary church building to its own permanent facility this May. The new building, made possible by a loan and increased enrollment, will house three classrooms, a main area, full kitchen and storage spaces along with a porch, playground, mud kitchen, nature trails and a myriad of animals -- horses, goats, sheep, chickens and pigs -- to meet students' outdoor needs.

Whether this Ash Flat institution is tantamount to a barn with "Christian" painted on the side, I cannot say, but it is interesting to have some details about how the voucher funds are being used in one rural community.  

Nelson's column continues: 

Funding the voucher scheme will cost the state more and more in the years ahead. That will come at the expense of public school funding. As one who travels through and writes about rural Arkansas, I worry. Rural schools won't have the funds they need to operate. Parents will move elsewhere. Enrollment numbers will fall to the point that those schools cease to exist. Once schools die, the communities around them will die.

Nelson notes that these concerns to preserve rural schools and communities are what have led Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska to reject similar schemes.   

With rural Texas lawmakers failing to hold the line against vouchers after a years-long struggle, this is an issue rural education advocates will surely continue to watch closely.  With Arkansas a few years ahead of its behemoth sister state to the southwest on the voucher path, the consequences of these programs on rural schools may be revealed in Arkansas before they are known in the Lone Star State. 

Postscript:  On April 24, 2025, the Arkansas Times published this commentary on the Arkansas voucher scheme.  Benjamin Hardy writes under the headline, "Texas joins Arkansas in the great Republican school voucher experiment."  He leads with news that the Texas Senate has now joined that state's lower chamber in support of the program: 

After years of resisting Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s plans to create a universal school voucher program like those in Arkansas and other red states, rural Republican legislators in the Lone Star State finally caved.

On Thursday, the Texas Senate gave final passage to a bill that will devote $1 billion over the next two years to set up “education savings accounts” to pay for private school tuition and other expenses beginning in the 2026-27 school year.

Hardy also provides additional information about the implementation and cost of the program, in both Arkansas and Texas:  

Arkansas gradually phased its program in, perhaps so as to soften the gigantic blow to the state budget. LEARNS vouchers were available only to certain groups of students in the first two years.

In Year 3, the upcoming 2025-26 school year, the vouchers will be available to all students in Arkansas — and will cost the state a whopping $277 million. On a per capita basis, that’s way more than the $1 billion the Texas program is supposed to cost over the first biennium. But the price tag in Texas will certainly balloon: A fiscal statement estimated vouchers will cost the state $3.8 billion on net by 2030.

It's going to be interesting to see how these states' budgets will absorb these costs in coming years.  It will also be interesting to see the impact the schemes will have on rural schools' budgets--especially in an era when many expect Title I funding to dwindle under the Trump administration.   

The USDA pulls back from rural communities

The Trump administration's efforts to reduce the size of government now include reducing investment in rural America. The administration recently fired hundreds of staffers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development program, part of a broader firing of 6,000 staff at USDA. Many staff are now being reinstated following court challenges to the layoffs, but their futures remain uncertain.

Alongside the layoffs and uncertainty, the Trump administration ordered staff not to perform community outreach, which Carrie Decker, a West Virginia employee of USDA Rural Development, said was "90% of what we do." 

All of this looks like it will have a profound effect on rural communities across the U.S. Frank Morris at KCUR reports, 

[t]he U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development is Washington’s chief tool to promote economic growth in rural counties — providing funding for everything from renovating old hospitals to providing faster internet service.

Previous bloggers have highlighted some of the many benefits provided by Rural Development. The agency 

does things that local governments can't afford - building water supply systems for small, shrinking towns, for instance, shoring up hospitals, buying police cars. It's an economic lifeline to places without a lot of options. 

Rural Development has a long history of bringing needed investment to rural areas. 

USDA Rural Development is rooted in the Great Depression, when the Rural Electrification Administration brought power lines to hundreds of remote communities. The agency has sustained thousands of towns over the decades, often by supporting the businesses and farms that bring money into the local economy. 

Now, government upheaval under the new administration is draining the resources that could go to rural people and towns. Former Missouri head of USDA Rural Development Kyle Wilkens noted that the current process of firing and rehiring is highly inefficient:

Think of the time that you're taken away from these folks doing their actual job and that is money. It's all it is. It's money.

Many of the grants already cut are relatively small, but provide important support for small-scale programs in rural communities.

One of the most notable examples is the Mancos Conservation District in Colorado, which had its $630,000 grant for the Equity in Conservation Outreach Program canceled. This grant was intended to support small farmers, tribal communities, and local outreach efforts in the region.

The Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council in Kansas City also faced a setback when its $165,000 Farmers Market Promotion Program grant was canceled. Director Alana Henry explained that, despite the cancellation, the community is working hard to keep their farmers market going and continue supporting local growers.

While much of the Trump administration's efforts at "government efficiency" seem to be aimed at reducing red tape and allowing greater private investment, there does not appear to be private capital ready to fill the void caused by cuts to Rural Development programs. Owen Hart, from the National Association of Counties, pointed out that

[i]n a lot of these communities, USDA Rural Development is the most important partner. You can’t rely on private investment coming in. The market’s just not there for it. You can't rely on philanthropy, like you can in a lot of urban areas to meet some of these needs. It is a really, really crucial partner to a lot of these folks.

Without any clear benefits from slashing this vital economic lifeline besides nominal budgetary relief, the administration appears to be primarily sending a political message. USDA recently announced that it was allowing applicants for Rural Development's energy programs to update their applications by removing DEIA and climate-related content, which it framed as an 

opportunity to refocus their projects on expanding American energy production while eliminating Biden-era DEIA and climate mandates embedded in previous proposals.

Ignoring the inefficiency of resubmitting already-submitted applications, this announcement shows that the political messaging of these changes is the point. USDA's emphasis on "energy independence" also indicates that the administration is ignoring or downplaying the many beneficial programs overseen by Rural Development that do not involve energy, such as grants and business support for small farmers. 

Punching down at rural areas by the Trump administration is not limited to USDA. The Department of Health and Human Services is trying to eliminate the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps low-income households, many in more rural areas of the country, offset the cost of high energy bills. Much like the Rural Development cuts, the obvious impact of cutting the 25 staff at LIHEAP is that 6.2 million Americans who relied on those funds will struggle to make ends meet.

The frustratingly narrow focus on "energy independence" at USDA under the Trump administration seems particularly backwards when considering the strong support Trump received from many rural parts of this country - and his efforts to cast his campaign as advocating for rural people. One can more easily imagine a Republican administration wanting to promote its investments in rural farms and communities than risking the backlash associated with cutting those programs. 

One reason for these cuts is to reduce citizens' faith in, and reliance on, the federal government to provide benefits to the public. The administration's directive to reduce community outreach at Rural Development, even while outreach staff remain employed, reduces visibility for agency programming without saving any money. Instead, making communities less aware of the possible benefits of working with federal agencies is the point. In The Fifth Risk, Michael Lewis recounts an illustrative scene in which a local official requested that USDA staff not show up to the ribbon-cutting for a new grocery store in his town that was built with Rural Development funds, because he said that people in town did not think highly of the federal government. 

(I highly recommend The Fifth Risk for further reading on USDA Rural Development, as well as other vital and under-appreciated areas of the federal government.)

Even if this administration succeeds in further reducing communities' faith in government, that success will not create more jobs or bring better internet access or hospitals to rural communities. Hopefully, in the same way that farmers are lobbying for relief from Trump's tariffs, there can be some political will to push back against these cuts. But unlike Big Ag, the people served by Rural Development are not already wealthy and politically influential. They need government support just to get by, or in the hopes of improving areas that have historically suffered from under-investment. Are these cuts truly worth the pain?

Building blocks: how a lack of childcare infrastructure is hurting children and their parents

In mid-March, The Daily Yonder published a piece detailing social worker and filmmaker Laura Norton-Cruz’s efforts to bring awareness to the lack of childcare infrastructure in rural Alaska. Norton-Cruz is intimately familiar with the shortage of childcare, and the problems this shortage creates for rural Alaskan families. The Daily Yonder writes:

Norton-Cruz remembers finding out that she was pregnant and feeling like she’d just been “thrown to the wolves.”  “What am I going to do about child care?” she asked. “What am I going to do about breastfeeding and pumping at work? What am I going to do about paid leave?"

Over a decade after becoming a single mother, Norton-Cruz enlisted the help of filmmaker Joshua Branstetter and created At Home/In Home: Rural Alaska Childcare in Crisis, a documentary that would provoke Alaska’s state legislature.

Norton-Cruz’s documentary focuses on Kotzebue, Alaska, a rural town of 3000 residents, primarily Alaskan Native people. More than 500 children under the age of five reside in Kotzebue, yet the town does not have a single licensed childcare facility. 

Unfortunately, Kotzebue is not unique. According to a December 2024 report from the Alaska Governor’s Task Force on Child Care, 61% of Alaskans have limited or no access to licensed childcare facilities, even though over half of young children live in households where all parents are employed and need childcare.

The documentary portrays parents who are forced to leave jobs in childcare deserts, employers who cannot find employees, public officials who track the economic damage of the childcare crisis, and residents who battle the state childcare licensing system as they try to establish a home-based childcare facility.

Childcare deserts are not just present in rural Alaska. In fact, nearly two-thirds of American rural families live in a childcare desert. Childcare deserts are defined as areas where there are more than three young children for every licensed childcare slot available. 

Additionally, rural Americans spend more money and travel farther for childcare arrangements. On average, a rural family spends 12.2 percent of their income and travels 7.5 miles for childcare while urban families spend 10.8 percent of their income and travel 3.5 miles for childcare. (Read more about rural childcare here and here).

The lack of infrastructure to support women and children is a recurrent problem in rural areas, and expands beyond a lack of childcare. A 2023 CDC report found that only 31% of rural municipalities had some type of paid maternity leave in 2021 compared to 41.2% of urban areas, and 42.3% of rural municipalities provided break time and space to pump breast milk versus 55.4% of urban municipalities.

It is well documented that rural areas are also lacking in maternal care. As of 2024, 59% of rural counties qualify as maternity care deserts. As a result, rural women have consistently higher predicted probability of maternal mortalities, with 37.9 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 occurring in rural areas in 2020 and 31.2 deaths per 100,000 in micropolitan areas, compared to 29.9 per 100,000 in large metropolitan areas. (Read more about rural maternal health care here and here).

Alaska is a particularly challenging place to deliver health and human services due to its vast size, sparse population, extreme climate, and the unique needs of its diverse communities, including Native populations. As such, rural Alaskan populations often face even more extreme disparities in healthcare access and outcomes.

Thankfully, Norton-Cruz’s film has prompted the Alaskan governor to set up the Alaska Child Care Task Force, which has allowed Kotzebue residents to erect a home-based non-profit early learning program. Although residents admire the program’s progress, the early learning program only serves eight of the 500 children under the age of five in Kotzebue. Clearly, there is still much work to be done. 

Norton-Cruz continues to document the Task Force’s progress. She states:

We have to keep paying attention to this issue and keep the pressure on…because that’s what leads to changes in funding and changes in policy. We need to help employers, legislators, and leaders see that this is the most important part of child development and the most abandoned policy issue of our time.

From Benin City to global stages: what Rema's journey teaches us about rural potential

When we talk about rural areas, we often associate them with limited opportunities, economic struggles, and slow-paced lifestyle. However, raw talent and unique cultural identity are hidden in these communities. When nurtured, they can thrive on global scale. A perfect example of this is the story of my favorite singer, Divine Ikubor, popularly known as Rema. The Nigerian Afrobeat sensation rose from Benin City to international fame. In my opinion, his journey reflects the reality of many rural areas worldwide: full of talent just waiting to be discovered.

 

The singer’s beginnings were undeniably humble. He was born in 2000, in Benin City, Nigeria, a region that isn't traditionally known for producing mainstream music stars. Like many people from smaller towns, Rema had to navigate economic and social challenges while chasing his dream. According to the World Bank’s “Nigeria Poverty Assessment 2022”, about 40% of Nigerians live below the national poverty line. In many regions, especially in the north, access to quality education and basic infrastructure such as clean water and electricity remains limited. To make matters harder, the Afrobeat sensation lost both his father and brother at a young age, forcing him to take on responsibility for his family. Before his breakthrough, he worked multiple jobs to support them.

 

What makes Rema stand out globally is his ability to blend Afrobeat with international influences while staying true to his Nigerian roots. Rural communities have rich cultural histories that can become assets rather than obstacles. For example, rural tourism seems to be growing worldwide, as people are increasingly interested in authentic experiences: learning traditional farming techniques, attending local festivals, and exploring indigenous arts. By embracing these traditions, rural communities can turn their heritage into a source of income and pride. 

 

Just like Rema’s talent was waiting to be recognized, rural areas worldwide are filled with people whose potential remains unseen due to lack of exposure. Technology and social media are slowly changing this narrative. The singer used to make music as a teenager and post it online. One of his freestyles went viral and caught the attention of music executives, which led him to sign with Mavin Records, the label that launched his international career. Similarly, South African singer Tyla also gained international recognition through her 2023 hit “Water”. The song amassed over 10 billion views on Tiktok.

Rema’s journey is inspiring but it’s not just about music. It is a case study about how potential can flourish with the right mix of talent, opportunity, and technology. For rural communities to thrive, they need more than just ambition —they need support. In that context, Nigeria has taken steps to support its booming creative sector. Initiatives like the Creative Industry Financing Initiative (CIFI), launched by the Central Bank of Nigeria, provide financial support to young creatives in music, fashion, and film. Similarly, the African Creative Blueprint, backed by a $3.5 million USAID investment and run by Ascend Studios, provides training and mentorship in TV production and other creative fields.

But despite these good intentions, initiatives like CIFI and the USAID-Ascend partnership are often centered in urban hubs, where exposure, and industry connections already exist. For a gifted musician in a rural area with no stable internet, no mentors, and no recording gear, these programs can feel out of reach. In her blog post, Sophie Roppé made a good point about rural festivals like Bonnaroo and Hinterland: they’re not just music events —they’re economic catalysts and cultural lifelines for smaller communities. Similarly, if countries like Nigeria could host festivals outside of urban centers, it could celebrate local talent and stimulate local economies.

If Nigeria truly wants to nurture the next generation of creatives, it must dig deeper. Funding is a start, but it must be followed by real infrastructure, decentralized mentorship, and digital access that reaches every corner of the country. Like Rema, rural talent is ready to shine. The question is: Are we ready to invest in it?

Out of the wilderness

An extreme concentration of power and corruption is taking over our country like never before . . . and our political system is ill equipped to face this abuse of power.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, speaking in front of a crowd in Greeley, Colorado.

In a time when the Trump Administration is kidnapping and attempting to deport lawful permanent residents for political stances; advocating for the takeover of other countries; unconstitutionally closing congressionally created agencies;  calling for the disbarment of a judge who blocked deportations; attempting to strip protections for federal workers; cancelling billions in already federally approved health grants; and disregarding a judicial order, the Democratic party needs to be clear about the vision of America that they can offer. 

The party's response has been underwhelming. In a town hall in Oregon City, Oregonians from rural and urban areas, were told by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Representative Janelle Bynum next to nothing of notable democratic resistance, instead being only “offered . . .  paltry suggestions to call [] representatives and vote blue next election cycle.” Chuck Schumer, after stating he would not vote for the Republican funding bill, voted for the Republican funding bill. 

It feels as if the mainline Democrats are operating as if it is business as usual, asking for voters to turn out in 2026 and 2028 in order to regain the House, Senate and White House. The party seem unable to face the facing the truth: that we are facing an ongoing existential threat to American Democracy. 

On the party's progressive flank however, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are fighting back.

On March 21, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) stood in front of a crowd in Greeley, Colorado (population 108,795, in the conservative county of Weld). As a stop on their “Fighting Oligarchy Tour” the two progressive politicians, both east coasters, stood in front of a crowd of more than 10,000 Coloradans. 

The choice of Greeley for a progressive rally is strange. The next day, Bernie and AOC drew in record numbers in Denver, a city far more hospitable to progressives. With the larger city of Boulder nearby that is home to more Bernie/AOC supporters, why stop in Greeley? 

AOC and Bernie are making an argument: their leftist economic policies are popular in conservative areas like Weld County. The rally there continued a trend of large crowds showing up for Sanders and AOC in districts that voted Republican in 2024. As one Greeley resident stated “I didn’t think things like this happened in Greeley. People would always go to Fort Collins. So it’s just like a little bit of hope.”

One member of the crowd from the small town of Lyons remarked to Colorado Public Radio, "I'm really concerned about poor people in the United States, [the] working class. I'm really disappointed that the Democrats in some sense seem to have abandoned working-class people. And this is something I really admire about Bernie and AOC."

In a time where political commentators are decrying that Democrats are lost in the wilderness, AOC and Bernie Sanders have chosen a clear path out; leftist economic policy that will help the working class. In addition, they are asking for voters to engage in class solidarity.AOC said at the Greeley rally

Our task here is to build community. That's the deeper, deeper, deeper mission that we have . . . Because community is the most powerful building block we have against fascism, to defeat authoritarianism and to root out corruption.

In arguing for building community and engaging in solidarity, AOC has directly advocated for Trump voters and families of trans kids to organize together, admonishing that “this movement is not about partisan labels or purity tests . . . It’s about class solidarity. The thousands of people who came out here today to stand here together and say, ‘Our lives deserve dignity, and our work deserves respect.’”

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to the Greeley crowd pointed out that Representatives Gabe Evans (recently elected Republican, whose district includes Greeley) and Representative Lauren Boebert (representing the adjacent district), voted to cut Medicaid.

In Colorado, Medicaid covers 1.2 million people. It is believed that cutting Medicaid coverage and funding for Colorado will “lead to clinics closing and more expensive care, particularly in rural areas of the state.”

The path of the current Administration will hurt all of us, not just Democrats or Republicans. Plans to privatize USPS will lead to “Approximately 51.3 million rural addresses . . . impacted” by the need to add surcharges to deliveries to rural people in order to be profitable. The closure of the Department of Education will harm rural areas by cutting necessary funding, or hampering the ability for funding to reach those areas. 

It might be tempting for urban Democrats to feel that voters deserve this in rural areas, since rural areas are more likely to vote Republican than urban ones. I diagree. Coalition building will take time, and it inherently means that Democrats and liberals and leftists will need to attract conservative voters and those who have supported Trump.

Multiple GOP lawmakers have been booed or jeered at in town halls with their constituents. With this, it seems there is an opening for a new coalition to be made. Rural and urban voters, Trump voters and Harris voters, will all need to come together in order to protect the working class, and save American democracy.

For a recent blog post about Sanders and AOC's "Fighting Oligarchy" tour, look here. For more blog posts about rural politics, rural areas being ignored by democrats, and democrats attempts to appeal in rural areas, look here, here, and here.