The first time I gave blood in Alaska was at a bloodmobile parked at Merrill Field. The staff was cheerful and efficient. The other donors joked and bantered, racing each other to fill their pint bags.

When I’d filled mine, I accepted a juice box and chatted while I completed the waiting period. That’s when a staffer mentioned a woman who’d given 20 gallons of blood. I stopped mid-sip, certain I’d heard wrong. “Twenty gallons?” “That’s right,” was the reply, “you do the math.”

I did. Two pints to a quart, times four quarts to a gallon, times twenty gallons was 160 pints. You can only donate approximately every two months. Assuming you donated like a Swiss watch, that was 320 months — over 26 years of clockwork bloodletting.

Who would do that? Why? What kept her going through all the punctures and drainings?

I called the Blood Bank. They wouldn’t give a name, but they knew exactly who I was asking about. At my persistence, they agreed to call “the 20-gallon lady” and ask if I could contact her. And so, I met Eva Eckmann.

She stepped into the coffee shop. At 67, Eva was slim and athletic with a quick, wry smile, and glacier blue eyes. She was straightforward and laughed easily. Eva was born and grew up in Germany but came to Alaska in 1961 when she was 26, with her husband and a 7-month-old baby. She and her husband built a business, and two other children were born and raised in The Last Frontier.

I tried but Eva wouldn’t let me glorify her story. She first donated in 1971 after a friend of hers gave and she thought, “Well, geez, I can do that.” In response to my probing, she explained, “I felt that this was something I could do to help somebody else out who needs this gift.”

I thought of 160 people walking around with Eva’s gift: young people falling in love, marrying, having kids; moms and dads going to work, playing with their kids, helping them with homework; kids celebrating birthdays and soccer wins, growing up to make discoveries; elders ripe with a fine, fermented view of the world. All that living with Eva’s blood pumping through it.

Why so many times over so many years? Eva’s no-nonsense reply: “People are very friendly; you’re pampered at the Blood Bank. I’m not scared of needles. So there was really nothing that kept me from not repeating it.” She added, “I think I also have a tendency, that once I start something, I stick with it.”

“Do you feel now like you have to go?” I asked.

“Yes. I’m racing against the clock. Because 72 years is the age cut off for donating, so I thought, ‘Well I at least can get to 25 gallons!’”

“Eva, what makes you want to go for such a goal?” I asked. Her tone became serious, “For one thing, blood donations are needed more now than even 20 years ago — because of medical advances and more illnesses.”

There must be more, I thought — all those pricks and pints and years. “Has anyone in your immediate family ever had a need for blood?”

“No,” she said.

“Then why do you care? These are strangers.”

“That’s all right. They need other people’s care just as much as your own family does.”

At the end of our conversation, I asked Eva if she had any questions for me. There was just one. “Well, are you going to be a continuous donor now?”

What could I say? “Yes.”

Because of Eva, I went back to the Blood Bank. It was like a potlatch — sharing cookies, juice, and conversations with the staff and other donors. There was a sense of community.

Some months later I called Eva to see about getting together for lunch. When I asked her how she was, she answered without embellishment, “Not too good. I was having stomach aches, and the doctors say I have pancreatic cancer.” One of Eva’s first questions for the doctors was whether that would prevent her from donating blood. It did.

The cancer spread quickly. When I called again about lunch, Eva apologized, “I would like very much to see you, but I’m afraid lunch isn’t possible. I can’t keep food down, you see.”

“Oh, Eva,” was all I could manage through my tears.

“It’s not so bad,” she said, “my family is all here. My son flew in with his family, and my daughter has been helping take care of me.”

“It must be so difficult,” I choked.

There was a short silence before Eva replied, “Yes, it is difficult. But it is all very wonderful and precious, too.”

Eva died not long after that. The church where she’d taught Sunday school for 30 years was filled to overflowing, as were all the hearts in it. I thought of how Eva found wonder and preciousness even in the last days of her life. I silently prayed I might be worthy of Eva’s too brief friendship and all her grace.

Eva ran out of time before she made her goal of 25 gallons of giving. So, when I returned to the Blood Bank, I thought, “This pint’s for you, Eva.”

January is National Blood Donor month. Go to the Anchorage Blood Bank. Tell ‘em Eva sent you. Help her make 25 gallons—because, geez, you can do that.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the state must take steps to address chronic delays in processing Alaskans’ applications for food assistance, after repeated application backlogs.

U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason issued a preliminary injunction ordering the state to provide to the court monthly status reports detailing its efforts to process Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program applications within 30 days as required by federal law.

The order came in a lawsuit originally filed nearly two years ago by an Alaska civil rights firm, the Northern Justice Project.

The delays overall have affected thousands of Alaskans seeking aid through SNAP. The federally funded program, commonly referred to as food stamps, provides food benefits to low-income households.

As of November, there were more than 1,200 initial SNAP applications that had not been processed within 30 days as required, and the average application processing time stood at more than 60 days, according to information provided to the court.

State data submitted to the court shows that after crisis-level delays in processing food assistance applications that began in 2022, the state made improvements in processing times but then began falling behind again after accommodations from the federal government lapsed.

In 2023, the backlog reached a peak of 15,000 applications, leading the state to appropriate more funds to food banks and take steps to speed up the application processing times, like boosting the number of staffers working on the backlog.

The processing time improved by June 2024, when 89% of initial applications were processed on time. But the most recent data provided to the court showed that processing time fell in recent months, with only 72% of initial applications filed in October processed within the required timeframe.

Federal officials, recognizing the state’s backlog, earlier in 2024 waived a requirement for all applicants to be interviewed before receiving benefits in order to expedite the processing time. That waiver lapsed in October, leading the state to again fall behind in processing applications.

In its defense, the state has argued that it is already making “considerable efforts” to remedy its backlog, including by modernizing its technology. Division of Public Assistance Director Deb Etheridge told the court that a new online system, which will streamline applications, is expected to be fully running in July 2025 after more than $54 million was appropriated in 2023 to overhaul the Division of Public Assistance online system.

Additionally, the Legislature approved a “broad based categorical eligibility” reform that will expand eligibility to food assistance and simplify the application process. However, the change has yet to be approved by federal officials who oversee SNAP programs, according to court filings.

The Department of Health also attributed the backlog to “intractable staffing shortages.” The department said in court filings that it hired a consultant to design a “new staffing pattern” to address those shortages.

Gleason said those steps were not enough.

“While these efforts are commendable, there is at present no indication that these efforts will successfully bring (the Department of Health) into full compliance with the processing deadlines,” she wrote.

Under her order, the state will be required to provide monthly reports, beginning in February 2025, detailing the status of the application backlog and the department’s efforts to process applications within the required 30 days.

Department of Health spokeswoman Shirley Sakaye said in response to questions about the court order that the department had already seen “incredible improvement” in application processing time since the height of the backlog in 2022.

Sakaye listed various steps the division has taken to improve staff efficiency, including providing staff members with larger computer monitors and higher internet speeds. She also pointed to the department’s technological advancements. Until December 2023, SNAP applicants couldn’t submit their applications online.

Sakaye did not say whether — or how — the department planned to comply with the reporting requirements imposed by the court. A spokesperson for the Department of Law did not immediately respond.

James Davis, an attorney with the Northern Justice Project, said the reporting requirement would add a layer of accountability to the state.

“Doing nothing for another three or four years while hundreds of families go hungry is just not an acceptable status quo,” said Davis.

The order came days after an Anchorage Superior Court judge found that the state has been violating a separate requirement to process applications for cash assistance from low-income elderly or disabled Alaskans. Both programs are managed by the Division of Public Assistance.

As a travel writer, I sometimes feel like a real-life Walter Mitty. The highlight of my career, so far, has been sailing on the first cruise ship crossing of the fabled Northwest Passage. Highlights of that 32-day voyage include watching polar bears in the wild, soaring over the tundra in a helicopter, ice camping in Greenland, and last but not least, getting an Arc’teryx Atom Insulated Hoodie. 

I’m not joking. I’ve had this jacket since 2016, and it’s still going strong some 30-plus countries later. The cruise company gifted it to me since I was working for them, which is important to note since I never thought I’d be able to afford Arc’teryx. It’s not a cheap brand, but based on my experience with this one piece alone, it might be one of the best insulated jackets out there and is worth every penny. However, right now, you can be lucky enough to grab it for as little as $196 at Amazon and $210 at REI, if you can find your size.

Arc’teryx Women’s Atom Insulated Hoodie

Coming in at just 10.9 ounces and compressing down to be smaller than my beloved Cabeau travel pillow, the Arc’teryx Atom Insulated Hoodie is one of the most packable jackets on the market. I don’t even feel it when I’m wearing it around my waist. Despite how lightweight it is, it’s also incredibly warm thanks to the brand’s “Coreloft” insulation. Not only did it keep me cozy while I tent camped on the world’s second-largest ice cap in Greenland seven years ago, but one January it was also my second skin on a 12-day trip to Antarctica. 

The Arc’teryx Atom Insulated Hoodie has also kept me dry. The Atom Insulated Hoodie has the brand’s Tyono 20-denier nylon shell treated with a durable water repellent, and I’ve noticed that it sheds water much better than my other go-to puffer (albeit I got that one at Amazon for a fraction of the price, so I don’t expect it to perform as well.) For my fingers and my valuables, it has two hand pockets with hidden zippers and a generous internal zippered chest pocket. My favorite feature, however, is the hood. It’s spacious, adjustable, and has a handy brim, which keeps snowflakes out of my eyes. 

Meanwhile my friend Kean Christensen, an adventure photographer also based in Montana, is obsessed with the stretchy side panels. “The ability to have full range of motion while staying warm is the reason I chose the Atom Hoodie,” he recently told me. “Money well spent!” He’s had his jacket (it’s also available in Men’s) for years and wears it as a mid-layer, under a ski shell, and as a top layer. 

Arc’teryx Men’s Atom Insulated Hoodie 

You can score my favorite packable puffer at Amazon in black or lavender for as little as $196; you can also get it at REI in four different colorways starting at $120. The jacket is offered in women’s sizes XXS to XXL (but sizes are limited at Amazon and REI). At Arc’teryx, where I prefer to shop because there are more size options, it’s priced at $300 and comes in versatile black — and all sizes from XXS to XXL are in stock.

Of course, my Arc’teryx Atom Insulated Hoodie will always be the alpha since I’ve had it the longest, and it’s served me so well. But don’t just take my word for it. Online, it has more than 360 five-star reviews and nearly 90 percent of shoppers say they’d buy it again.  “Both my wife and I are on our second Atom jackets,” wrote one shopper who left a five-star rating. “The first ones are still going after more than 10 years, but showing their age, so we decided it was time to get new ones. We wear them almost daily for 6 months of the year and in almost all scenarios outside of torrential downpours.”

Another satisfied shopper who promises it will be “your most worn jacket” wrote, “it’s sleek enough to dress up and go out to dinner in.” I can’t agree more. I pack light, so I don’t usually bring both a dress jacket and a warm jacket. Yesterday, I wore my Atom Hoodie while hiking in Montana’s Paradise Valley before sporting it a few hours later at Sky Shed, the trendy rooftop bar at The Kimpton Armory Hotel Bozeman.

Of course, many shoppers mention taking it on trips, too. One who said it works well in fall, winter, and spring has sported it in downtown Chicago, in the mountains of Colorado, and on a road trip across California. Another shopper who got theirs for a February trip to the Pacific Northwest wrote, “This jacket is light, breathable and amazingly warm. I am curvy and it contours nicely.” I also read a review left by someone who wears theirs in airports!

I can’t tell you if your next flight will leave on time or if your luggage will make it to your final destination. But if you’re looking for an incredibly warm, lightweight jacket that will last for years (despite all the wear and tear of traveling), I can tell you not to sleep on the Arc’teryx Atom Insulated Hoodie. And if you like the idea of a packable puffer, but want something more affordable, see below for a few options, all under $60. 

Shop More Packable Puffer Jackets at Amazon:

The North Face Flare Down Insulated Puffer Jacket II

Wantdo Hooded Packable Ultra Lightweight Down Jacket 

Outdoor Ventures Full-Zip Packable Puffer Jacket

Alpine Swiss Eva Down Alternative Puffer Jacket 

Amazon Essentials Lightweight Packable Puffer Jacket

Carhartt Montana Relaxed Fit Insulated Jacket

At the time of publishing, the price started at $196. 

Love a great deal? Sign up for our T+L Recommends newsletter and we’ll send you our favorite travel products each week.