Baby it’s cold out here

Mar3 by Marc Grober

The Reformation, while feeding the concept of natural rights (which many see as eventually leading to much of what girds the spirit of the US’s founding fathers), also succored its antithesis. For while natural rights flow from natural law which is a byproduct of the Enlightened view of natural order (part and parcel of the Deist clockworks), it also brought to our shores the narrow minded intolerance of the Puritans, whose a priori view of the universe is still a curse on these shores.

To make matters worse, the unwashed masses confuse the concept of divine authority to engage willy-nilly in any activity they wish, with serious the jurisprudential questions. Of course there is a long history of the abuse of such confusion, as we see in the concept that a king is the annointed of the gods, or even that the individual is the annointed of the gods (in both cases authority flows from Zeus’ head as it were, not as a matter of human construction.)

Modern jurisprudence is not founded upon lighting bolts and plagues; as Professor Hohfeld noted a century ago, it is founded on a matrix of reciprocity – or as early British law put it, there is no right without a remedy. And so here we have from one perspective the chasm that in part divides ‘Mirka. On the one hand is a religious conviction which brooks no debate, while on the other we have a communitarian effort at managing all resources to everyone’s benefit.

Photo by Dara Ahrens

The crux of the antagonism, then, is the belief that anyone proposing legal guidelines that are inconsistent with Graham Crackers’ belief in what his deity intended is condemning one and all to unlawful acts in the eyes of that deity, with the likelihood of real time retribution (as in the water is rising because so is the amount of butt-fucking.) And this is where the Puritans enter, Stage Left, not because they were seeking individual religious freedom, but because they were seeking to create Sidney’s republic of saints. [And here we can note the nominal value Steve Salaita could have brought to UICU, the comparison of the “zionism” of the US with that of Israel, however defective his thesis may be.]

There is little to be gained in argumentation here. The ‘godly’ may from time to time deign to suggest that this or that policy is or is not acceptable to their mightiness (it would be difficult to attack Christians here as sole offenders as even Christian are hard put nowadays to agree on what a Christian is, and Christians are not the only ones whose deity is apparently ignoring the admonition of one purported prophet, to render unto temporal authority that which is of the temporal authority, lol) while the ungodly try to juggle the demands of billions of semi-sentient creatures, millions of whom are stomping their feet and screaming, “Me! Mine! More!”

Through the crack, sprightly

Mar3 by Marc Grober

It occurs to me that I have yet to meet a parent who didn’t feel that their child, not recognized as exceptional by their school, was very special and not adequately served by their school. Go figure. Indeed, one of the more frightening areas in which the far right and liberal left seem to make common cause is over “educational reform” — code for , “choice”.

When looks at the response to parental demands (read ‘low cost” private and charter schools), we see of course quite a bit of quackery, bigotry, but more importantly we see that these schools are mostly about parents being able to push educational staff around. Not that educational staff in many institutions shouldn’t be pushed around, lol, but I would prefer to see the pushing towards greater educational efficacy, as opposed to greater responsiveness to parental images of self-importance.

I am afraid we do have hordes of lousy teachers, but I don’t think a greater percentage than that of lousy parents, and while some might argue that with adequate educational leadership something can be made of even the worst teacher (presuming the existence of educational leadership, a matter I think in some dispute) the same can’t be said of parents.

Yes, I am outraged by a teacher who flunks his entire honors history class, but I also have to ask myself how such a class was filled with students who could not read or write to the standards necessary to take that class. And in the instances where I have witnessed such behavior, not a single parent though their child unprepared.

Screen Shot 2014-08-19 at 8.42.28 PM I will certainly admit to the fact that countless children escape an education, but qualify that confession with the observation that the wee toads are aided and abetted by their parents, who are of legal age, if not necessarily of sound mind, and whom, if the truth be told, are hustling their precious little devils through those cracks as quickly as their little chubby legs can carry them. And while some of us see down the rabbit hole as delightful interlude from the humdrum of our obligations, for some the illusion becomes all too real

While there are undoubtedly many exceptions, most of “us” are fearful, bigoted, and superstitious. We tend to think we are well educated while we are often almost functionally illiterate. We know very little history and less of any other social science, are largely innumerate, and have a good deal of trouble with our own language, let alone any other. We are tribal, snooty, and abusive while calling out others for being tribal, snooty and abusive. We are incredibly selfish, greedy and jealous. And now we want to be able to educate our children so that they don’t have to be near “Them”.

The most critical aspect of Education is learning about Others. The most critical target of Educational Reform can, I believe, be consistently seen in your mirror (as opposed to being found on the other side of it).

Pretty Please (with a wooden bridge on top)?

Dec20 by Marc Grober

I recently received two rather pleasant replies to my letter to the Anchorage Assembly regarding the ongoing obfuscation by MOA Parks and Rec Superintendent Spoth-Torres concerning trail bridges in Anchorage. The link to the local story is well worth the read if you get a kick out f people treading on their tongues. Of course, Jennifer Johnston is not “my” Assembly person. I am represented by an ex-cop frightened of marijuana who thinks the solution to the Anchorage homeless problem is to push the homeless out of his neighborhood, and an ex-State-legislator that doesn’t care about issues unless they specifically negatively impact him personally. I have regularly asked the Assembly Chair to request that IT check the status of MOA mail because it appears that these two fine fellows can’t manage to respond to e-mails, though Assembly members from the other side of town can, but that is a rant for another day.

Jennifer is a very pleasant woman (click here for a recent pre-election recap regarding the folks discussed here) from Hillside (don’t confuse Hillside with the East side) who has been a voting member of the “cripple Anchorage by supporting the Mayor’s attempts to collapse the Anchorage budget” caucus. In other words, if there is any basis for the contention that the bridge collapse is directly attributable to the shoddy attempts of some of our right wing budget hawk “conservatives” to take credit for the Anchorage “lifestyle” while not paying for much of anything, she is neck deep in that cesspit. Of course, as the note suggests, she will of course come out smelling like a rose but she didn;t ask anyone to skimp on construction or maintenance now, did she? But to be fair, she DID ask John Rodda to provide the necessary information to me, although that is very unlikely to ever happen — we shall see.

The other note I received was from Amy Demboski, another Republican, this time from Chugiak (where people in Anchorage live who hate Anchorage) whose debut issue as a candidate for Mayor was to opt Anchorage out of BoldAmy the State wide marijuana initiative which required that Alaska regulate marijuana like alcohol. Her campaign resulted in the appearance of some rather tacky graphics (an example appears to the left) and quite a bit of outrage (except from the supposedly “liberal” East side ex-cop, who is of course not liberal at all, except perhaps in Anchorage, where axe-murderers might be described as local celebrities.) The measure failed 9-2 and demonstrated that Amy has the pulse of the people (the State-wide measure passed in Anchorage by a very impressive margin) and knows when she has support so as not to waste the time of the public or the Assembly.

But enough ad hominem — Amy thanked my for bringing “this topic” to light, which is all very good until I started parsing “this topic”. Amy certainly is SO clueless that she means the collapse of MOA bridges because there was no maintenance. Well, to be totally honest (a trait we really don’t see much down at City Hall of late), there wasn’t even a maintenance schedule, thanks of course to Spoth-Torres who has been the Parks Superintendent for, well, frankly too long, thanks in part to her feckless supervisor, John Rodda, the guy who turned a bunch of teens loose to whack our nicest urban forest because some people called John – John could amazingly remember no names, no numbers, no nothing – and told him the scawey twees fwightened them, and yes, the same guy Jennifer suggested should be pleased as punch to provide me the records that demonstrate he has been totally irresponsible in performing his duties. Roger that.

Whoops, back to Amy. What then could she have meant by “this topic”. Would it be the fact that the bridges examined by the MOA contractor were only the bridges on the Coastal Trail, only one of the major trails in Anchorages trail system and home to only a portion of the bridges in Anchorage, most of which are low clearance bridges crossing the many creeks draining the Chugach Mountains and running through Anchorage to the Inlet we foul because we don;t fully process our sewage. Crap, another tangent. Amy! Or did she mean just the fact that the current Mayor seems to have installed a bridge that his staff have identified as inappropriate for the community? Beats me what she meant; for all I know she will introduce a measure seeking to opt Anchorage out of bridges!

In any event, here is my note (typos corrected) and Jennifer’s response.

John, could you provide Mr. Grober with background information? Thank you, Jennifer Johnston
________________________________________
From: Marc Grober [marc@interak.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:38 PM
To: WWMAS Assembly Members
Subject: Bridges

Dear Assembly,

Remarks by Ms. Spoth-Torres quoted in the local paper of record,

Spoth-Torres said the parks department has tried to research how the bridges were originally designed. It’s still not clear why those decisions were made, she said.

“But what we do know is, we would never do that now. Or even 10 years ago, 15 years ago,” she said.

Wooden bridges have an aesthetic edge in Anchorage, Spoth-Torres said. People love how they look.

But she acknowledged that in a coastal winter environment, materials like steel are far more durable.

suggest that the Department, a) claims that wooden bridges were built at some point because the public likes how they look, and b) in a coastal winter environment, steel is more durable.

This raises a number of questions for residents on the East side, and I ask the Assembly’s assistance in obtaining answers (in that the Department is rarely forthcoming in providing responses.)

Specifically, on the East side we have a number of wooden as well as steel bridges, Most anyone I have asked has indicated that the steel bridges are well designed, elegant and preferable over the rather clunky wooden bridges that the MOA has placed, so the first question would be to determine if the Department in fact ever obtained data as to what type of bridge the public prefers, or whether Spoth-Torres was making things up as she went (again.)

Additionally, it appears that the MOA has very possibly placed wooden versus steel bridges simply because the administration at the time didn’t want to have to bear the expense of appropriate construction (in other words, cynically figuring that the bridge would collapse on another’s watch.) Of course, we would not be able to determine if that were accurate unless we had data (preferably in a spreadsheet) of when the bridge was built, designed, funded (not to mention specifics of the bridge design as far as load, recommended maintenance schedule, etc.)

Lastly, having had numerous years in which to plan and implement a bridge replacement in RJSP (one of the wettest locations for a bridge in Anchorage) the Department installed a wooden bridge in a locale known to be constantly wet. Is Ms. Spoth-Torres telling us that a wooden bridge was selected though she knew better because people on the East side are too stupid to know the difference, because there is something different about this wood design than that used elsewhere, or that Stantec included the new RJSP bridge in its analysis? Certainly, it would have made a great deal of sense to determine if the bridge that the Sullivan Administration just installed a few months ago suffered the same defects as the MOA’s contractor says produced the disaster downtown.

In as much as my requests for similar data have resulted in months of having to threaten the Department of Law with litigation, and in as much as this is really a city wide concern rendered so much more distressing by the State of the MOA presentations the Administration has produced, I would appreciate it if the Assembly would act in concert to get to the bottom of this issue, and at least as far as those of us crossing a new wooden bridge are concerned, satisfy our curiosity as to why the MOA would install such a bridge if Spoth-Torres knew that it was inappropriate.

Thank you,

Marc Grober

p.s. In as much as people on the East side seem to have a devil of a time communicating to east side Assembly persons via e-mail, I would certainly appreciate an undertaking (or not) that you are willing to pursue such an investigation.

Generosity of Spirit

Dec17 by Marc Grober

I recently saw a post about an apocryphal Anchorage police officer who would let drivers off a drunk driving arrest if they could recite the names of Santa’s reindeer. As the potential source of such a libelous contention, I thought I had better set the record straight.

It was the day of Christmas eve 1978 if I recall correctly, and I was defending a DUI in the old Anchorage State Court House (the one that has recently been plucked from existence that used to stand in front of the red brick ‘tower of justice’.) I was pretty harsh on the arresting officer (I had only been practicing law for a year, was full of piss and vinegar, and had the facts at my back) and got an acquittal for my client. I left the Courthouse and went across the street to celebrate. Several rounds later I picked up my girlfriend and we went out on the town. After partying for hours, we walked to the car and I started to drive home. It was dark and the streets were largely empty. I got confused and I turned the wrong way down Fifth Avenue. Before I could pull a U-turn a police office had sighted me. I pulled over, dug out my license and registration, rolled down the window and waited. It was not going to be the night I had planned.

And then, just as I thought things could not get worse, who should approach the car but the officer I had eviscerated just hours earlier. We exchanged polite greetings, and the officer very generously told me that he understood that we both had a job to do, that I had done mine, and that perhaps, had he done his a bit better things would have turned out differently, but that he had no bad feelings over the situation, and it being Christmas eve and all, if I could name 6 of Santa’s reindeer he would consider that an adequate field sobriety test as he had seen no other evidence of intoxication.

I was overwhelmed with this guys spirit, but being very Jewish and not a little under the weather, I realized that my mastery of Clement Clarke Moore was as shady as his claim of authorship — I could not recite the necessary lines! I stumbled over Comet and Dancer, and catching my lady friend’s dirty looks I chirped Vixen and Cupid. Uhhhh, Blintzes (“I mean Blitzen, Officer”). And I was done. I mean I was done, my goose was cooked. I could see the officer getting irritated (he would have to stay long after his shift doing paperwork on an ingrate) and I would be lucky if my girlfriend had two words for me. Stick me with a fork.

Just then I happened to look in my rear view mirror where I saw the traffic light behind me turn red. It came to me (yes, in a flash), and I blurted out (it felt like I screamed it) RUDOLPH!!. No one was going to take issue with that (however off color the response may have been) and heaving huge sighs of relief all the way around, we all took our leave of each (the office vouchsafing my U-turn, lol.)

I tell people this and other tales of Anchorage in the 70s because they convey a sense of who we were, and who we have become. I never heard of any officer doing this as a regular schtick — the officer with whom I spent a few minutes that evening certainly had not offered that to my client, or I would have been a fee poorer, — but it would not be the first time that I heard one of my stories come back to me.

“Twas the Night Before Christmas – Project Gutenberg eText 17135”. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Twas_the_Night_Before_Christmas_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_17135.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Twas_the_Night_Before_Christmas_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_17135.jpg

Happy holidays, where ever you find them….

“Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!
On, Comet! on, Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!”

The Divided

Dec16 by Marc Grober

My review of The Divide on GoodReads appears below. Yes, I was a bit frustrated that in all the reviews of this book there was not a single mention of this glaring error, which of course led me to wonder how many other errors there were in this or any of the other books being touted from bestseller and other “lists”. And so I started a journey. First I attempted to being this to the attention of the publishers, who indicated they weren’t interested and I should write to the author, so I did. The author failed to respond. I commented on book reviews at major publications (no traction) and eventually added some material to the wikipedia page on the book (limited to the the book text on the issue, and the contents of the report, with a footnote to a link for the letter sent to publisher and author.). It turns out that wikipedia requires that entries must reference published sources, and published does not include self-publication. In other words, if you have a letter from the President that says that he wants to get something accomplished regarding immigration in 2016, you can’t reference that letter until some bozo on HuffPo mentions it first. Lions and tiger and bears!

Don’t get me wrong! I think it’s a very strong book and makes powerful arguments. But at least one claim is introduced as based on an argument that is easily demonstrated to be false. But that is not my underlying concern here. My real concern is that the book is being lauded for its expert research, while no one will even acknowledge any errors in the book. And so, to Goodreads (as I mention, my review appears at the foot of this post. )

But first, the impetus for this post. It turns out that noting that the first chapter of a wildly popular “liberal” book is based on the deliberate misrepresentation that the Obama Whitehouse was involved in Senator Ted Steven’s prosecution is nitpicking about something no one remembers has turned me in to FoxNews style Obamabot who wants to dump the baby with the bathwater! Read it for yourself:

[Geoffrey] “* * * As usual, this book is expertly researched. * * *”

[Marc] “Amazes me people can say this work is expertly researched when the first chapter is in fact based on gross inaccuracies.”

[Geoffrey] “Yeah, your review looks a bit to much like a FoxNews tactic turned Obamabot defense: find one nit to pick about a paragraph no one remembers, and say that the baby must go with the bathwater. Not buying it.”

[Marc] “Interesting comment. My concern is that Taibbi’s argument is that the Dems are as guilty of the offenses he presents as the Republicans (which is arguably true) but as a basis for that argument he launches in to a wholly unrelated domain regarding Senator Stevens and then totally botches his argument (no, the Dems had nothing to do with the Stevens prosecution and the documentation of this error, which goes to the basis of his argument, has nothing in common with Fox News, lol.) Yes, the book is expertly argued, but no, the book is not expertly researched, if by that you mean that the research supports the argument. I did not say toss the baby with the bathwater, but I am saying that we need to spend more time with the research that is offered to support such books, because, as you intimate, no one is in fact reading the footnotes. Moreover, if you wish to argue that the argument regarding Stevens is nominal and unimportant, then I suppose that is a criticism of Taibbi, as in, why would he include as a major part of an early chapter in his book a claim (that is demonstrably false) intended to set up the one the premises for the rest of the book. This is not about political partisanship; this is about the publication of widely acclaimed books that have major misrepresentations anchoring their arguments.”

[Geoffrey] “I assume you’re one of those commenters that gets paid by the word. I didn’t know you guys trolled even goodreads. Is this a proving ground you experiment in before graduating to Facebook and Twitter?”

[Marc] “Let’s try to stay focused, shall we?
You claim the book is expertly researched.
I demonstrate that a major argument in the first chapter is based on gross misrepresentation of the facts that can be appreciated by anyone.
You fail and or refuse to acknowledge the errors and claim I am “nitpicking”
I point out that getting one’s shorts in a twist about a typo in a footnote is nitpicking, while demonstrating that the introduction of a major theme in the book, complicity of the Democratic party, based on a false argument, is not, whether or not the the argument is viable (I agree it is) or well made (I also agree it is).
The upshot would appear to be that you don’t know what “expertly researched” means and you are frightened of rational discussion (do the mean little wordies bitesies?)
When you wish to contribute something substantive, let me know. I enjoy Taibbi’s writing and am disappointed that this kind of crap pops up as a cornerstone of a major theme in his book.”

In sum, Solomon’s wisdom (yes, I know I am mixing metaphors, but Solomon’s ancient test to determine what is really important seems related to bath water here…) has been turned on its head. We are being asked to ignore the bathwater because of the baby. And we are attacking those that read critically. If that sounds like a far right tactic, well, guess what, it appears to be a a tactic of the left now too.

My question to Taibbi, and Taibbi groupies I suppose, is what The Divide would look like if the error I found (and other errors if they exist) are removed. If there would be no real impact on the argument, then why not fix the errors, admit the mistakes and move on (as opposed to pretending that the basis for your argument is unimportant.) If, on the other hand, addressing errors would be problematic, then that is truly a cause for concern.

In other words, such issues challenge an author’s credibility. At least for those who remember what he wrote…

I was puzzled by Matt Taibbi’s attack on the Obama Whitehouse over the Steven’s litigation, as much of Alaska was puzzled by the apparent intent of the Bush Whitehouse to not only keep Stevens out of the Senate, but to accomplish same illegally. The suggestion that Obama or his appointees, whatever you may think of the current administration, had anything to do with the Stevens prosecution other than the “clean up” (such as it was) is simply ludicrous. Yet, there it was, introducing and underscoring “Unintended Consequences.”

“The so-called Schuelke report would not come out for three more years, but when it did surface, it contained a startling tale. Obama’s new appointees had inserted a young prosecutor named Brenda Morris as lead prosecutor in the Stevens case days before trial, infuriating the rank-and-file prosecutors in Alaska who had run the case since its inception.”

But the Report (which can be found here for those without ECF access: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/s…) had no trouble being seen, was circulated almost as soon as it was filed with the Court, and stated,

“Senator Stevens was arraigned on July 31, 2008, and his attorney,
Brendan Sullivan, requested an October trial date so that Senator
Stevens, who was running for re-election, could clear his name before
the November election. Brenda Morris, the lead prosecutor, acceded to
the request and suggested an earlier trial date, Sept. 24, 2008, which
was accepted by the Court and Mr. Sullivan. That date was later advanced
and jury selection began on Sept. 22, 2008. The prosecutors had
anticipated the possibility of a speedy trial request by the defense,
decided in advance to consent if one was made, but they were unprepared
for a speedy trial.”

In other words, Schuelke states in his report that Brenda Morris was lead prosecutor in the case long before a highly contested election. The suggestion that an Obama administration had anything to do with obstructing discovery in the Steven case (which, by the way, played out in September and October of 2008), let alone submarining the litigation through a last minute change in personnel, is simply untenable.

How could the editor’s fact-checkers have made it through the galleys of the first chapter of this book without noticing such a glaring mistake. How many other errors does the book contain, and can I trust Matt Taibbi any more? There are many divides in our society, and one of them is the divide that separates those that argue from fact from those that make things up as they go along. I am now distressed that I no longer am sure sure on which side of that divide Matt resides.

“Whose woods these are…”

Oct29 by Marc Grober

Most of us are familiar with Frost’s Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening, the opening phrase of which serves as the title for this ramble, but we push on, as would Frost’s little horse. But the phrase gave me pause this morning as I strolled in the woods I am privileged to live by.

I confess it now, that I spend so much time in those woods that I will often commit the sin of being tethered in a park; mea culpa, but so it was that as Freddy and I came upon a Cow Moose and this year’s progeny, the phone rang. I took a moment to advise my caller, who was calling from “the contiguous 48” (once upon a time I had a vehicle repossessed because the lienholder believed I had removed the vehicle from the United States) that I had to get situated where I could keep an eye on my friends before I could discuss our business.

Business concluded, I waved farewell to madonna and child and wandered home, only then being struck (admittedly not for the first time) with how fantastically privileged I am to be able to live by a wooded place with a natural spring and wildlife, that I took it for granted that I shared my space with a half ton wild mammal and other species.

I have these pleasures because I am a member of a collective which when asked, Whose woods are these?”, can respond, “Ours.”

And yet that collective has all but destroyed those places, that aesthetic.

Those persons we have selected as Trustees of those precious gifts have run roughshod over these places. They have cut down the trees in the name of public safety and sport, and neglected what needs assistance in the name of cash and convenience. We have turned ourselves over to the ubiquitous “user group” with the inevitable “partnership agreement.” Why were the soccer goals in the community park removed that had stood there for 20 years? No User Group Partnership Agreement.

This is symptomatic of possessive narcissism, if it is not developed and under contract it has no value and is on the market: first come first served. I have to admit that what has kept me going through this political season is the fact that Dan Sullivan is done.

The Anti-Rogue

Oct18 by Marc Grober

Dan Sullivan is now bragging that he is endorsed by Condi Rice

It was an honor to work with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the State Department to combat terrorism and keep America safe, and I’m so grateful for her support. Secretary Rice appears in my new ad “Challenging Times” and describes our work together and the stakes of this election. Watch the ad here on Facebook and chip in $10 to help keep the ad running! http://bit.ly/1wN7J35

Condi Rice (arguably a co-architect of Mission Accomplished:Iraq.) is widely known for her support for the invasion of Iraq and for her endorsement of enhanced interrogation techniques (otherwise known as waterboarding, or torture.)

I observed to Dan, “Interesting claim, but it would seem that the policies you pursued increased and spread terrorism and made the U.S. and much of the rest of the world much less safe. What data are your claims based on?”

He responded, “I worked to defund terrorist networks and encourage divestment from rogue states.” While this sounds really swell, it’s a statement not only apparently missing from the strategy adopted by President Bush (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf), it is also alarmingly vague (which is my way of suggesting that it sounds very much like the current Administration’s policy, which contrary to that of Bush, is intended to avoid use of military action.) The Bush Administration was neither vague nor apologetic about their advocacy of pre-emptive strikes.

National security experts note the U.S. strategy for dealing with rogue regimes changed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. In a June 2002 speech at West Point, President Bush said: “containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.” The Bush administration’s National Security Strategy, issued in September 2002, asserted the need for preemptive strikes against states or entities intent on terrorism. This language “reflected the view that the bad behavior of these regimes was inextricably linked to their character,” says the Wilson Center’s Litwak. “Hence, a change of conduct or behavior would be inadequate because the behavior derived from the regime’s character. Therefore, you had to change the regime to end the behavior.” http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot1_20080602.html

While Condi is “on board” with Dan (‘he served as a… Marine!’), Condi says nothing about the relative qualities of Dan vs Mark, so we are left to assume that she supports Dan because he is a true-believer: he endorses torture, pre-emptive unilateral regime change, and all the other policies Condi promoted during her tenure as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.

“But wait!” you might blurt out. “What about that stand-up guy in the Bush Administration, Colin Powell? ” No, Screen Shot 2014-10-18 at 4.18.45 PM the top military official of the Bush Administration is no where to be seen. Hmmmph…..

The constant repetition of military themes in Sullivan’s campaign herald his hawkish and militant approach to most everything, and his rhetoric regarding the current Administration suggests that as a US Senator he would promote war. He would push a war on woman, a war on drugs, a war on health care, a war on regulation of business AND hot wars around the world where US sons and daughters would die to accomplish some end that has yet to be defined, but are intended to demonstrate that, yes, the US can kill people and blow stuff up if that’s what it takes to satisfy US corporate demands. Yousa! Exciting stuff!

But I suppose for Alaskans, the real crux is that he claims to be Alaskan because he married Jane Fate’s daughter (at least that’s what Jane’s daughter claimed when SHE showed up instead of Dan in Bethel. ) Frankly, I think he should run for Senate from a State that is more prudish, bigoted, hypocritical, and misogynist, than Alaska (North Carolina comes to mind.) Be a better match, no matter that Julie ‘stands by her man…’

Shannyn Moore and Gang Go “Lord of the Flies”

Oct17 by Marc Grober

This is what passes for adult discussion on Facebook by the “left” in Alaska. Unfortunately, Facebook often shows posts out of the actual time order, but I have done my best to offer what Facebook provides. And the thread lives on; those of you addicted to Facebook can find it here: https://www.facebook.com/shannyn.moore/posts/10152376543178021?comment_id=10152376598923021. The most illuminating comment? Perhaps the one that goes something like, “This is Shannyn’s wall and she can say whatever she wants on it….”

For those of you not familiar with the underlying issue, though the Alaska District Court almost spanked the State of Alaska in his decision (http://alaskapolicy.net/PublicRecords/HambyOrder.pdf), the Governor sought a stay there (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000767), and when it was denied he sought a stay in the 9th Circuit, which afforded him two days to seek a stay before the Supreme Court (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles\14a413.htm). of the actions of an attorney with respect to requesting a stay for his client. Kyle Duncan is the name of the attorney retained by the State of Alaska to appear before the Supreme Court. And it is Kyle Duncan, whatever his personal affairs may be, that this crowd is attacking, over his professional obligations, which suggests that this group should likely revisit their high school civics class.

If you stayed awake during History class you may remember that John Adams famously agreed to undertake the defense of the soldiers charged in what became known as the Boston Massacre.

Jack Balkin pointed out some aspects of Hobby Lobby missed by most (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/02/compendium-of-posts-on-hobby-lobby-and.html) as did Andrew Koppelman (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118488/hobby-lobby-decision-was-victory-womens-rights).

I am not a paid troll. Whether I am simple and stupid? Well I suppose that is for you to decide 😉

**************************************

Shannyn Moore

8 hrs · Seldovia Village, AK ·

This is the asshat Parnell hired to represent Alaska against marriage equality. The douche from Hobby Lobby. Because “religious liberty” means you should be free to practice Parnell’s religion. Our tax payer dollars hard at bigotry. http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/people/kyle-duncan

Like Like · · Share

33 people like this.
Linda Scates Are you kidding me? I don’t know if I believe in God or not, but I’m praying that Parnell will be gone after November.

8 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Merwyn Ambrose Does calling an attorney a douche make you feel better? John Adams is rolling in his grave….

8 hrs · Like
Ruth Macdonald fuQQ

8 hrs · Like
Rick Brooks John Adams was one of those trying to keep religion out of our politics.

8 hrs · Like · 4
Merwyn Ambrose John Adams understood that the law works because even the most heinous individual and most onerous issues are to be heard in our courts and it is counsel’s job to make that happens

8 hrs · Like
Jennifer Pastrick He spends taxpayer money on his own convictions – somehow that just don’t seem right.

8 hrs · Like · 3
Merwyn Ambrose You want to suggest Parnell is an ineffectual governor, knock yourself out! Castigating counsel for meeting their oaths is simply juvenile

8 hrs · Like
Rick Brooks Kyle Duncan is not on trial, so your assertion is irrelevant. This is about the law itself and how our governor is trying to insert his religious beliefs into it.

8 hrs · Like · 2
Merwyn Ambrose My assertion is relevant because Shannon attacked counsel

8 hrs · Like
Jennifer Pastrick ^attack is a strong word. Voicing her opinion in less than glowing terms would seem more appropriate. Lighten up Merwyn – life is short.

8 hrs · Like · 1
Shannyn Moore Merwyn is a troll.

8 hrs · Like · 1
Rick Brooks Our governor is using the government (counsel) to insert his religious beliefs into the law.

8 hrs · Like
Merwyn Ambrose Oh, then you won’t mind me calling you an asshat and a douche

8 hrs · Like
Rick Brooks Well … that proves it.

8 hrs · Like
Jennifer Pastrick well of course. But the trolls in Monty Python were just for show also yet so entertaining. Not relevant – kinda like bad clowns.

8 hrs · Like
Merwyn Ambrose And calling someone a troll because they note when you overreach yourself is quite the cyber bully tactic

8 hrs · Like
Shannyn Moore If the governor reacted half as fast to raped women in the ANG as he has to gay marriage – also known as marriage – then less women would be raped.

8 hrs · Like · 3
Shannyn Moore The stupid is strong with you Merwyn.

8 hrs · Like
Merwyn Ambrose Yes, but note that you did not have to denigrate counsel to say that, did you

8 hrs · Like
Merwyn Ambrose Want to swap personal insults now-very grown up of you

8 hrs · Like
Rick Brooks time to block

8 hrs · Like
Jennifer Pastrick Boy just wants to have fun f^cking with everyone. by counsel you mean attorney … and they are the most denigrated of all professions… I am sure they have been called worse. Shhh now Merwyn the adults are talking.

8 hrs · Like · 1
Shannyn Moore So you are the defender of asshat council?

8 hrs · Like · 1
Merwyn Ambrose Let’s recap — you thinks it’s ok to call attorneys names because, after all, they are attorneys? Yes indeed…

8 hrs · Like
Tom Baxter I am all for “religious liberties.” Until they interfere with my or others civil rights. If your a bigot or a racist you can not hide behind
“religious liberties.” If your a homophobic again religious rights or liberties can not allow you to be so. Where are my liberties when you shove your faith no matter what faith it is down my throat, or tell me I have to live up to your pie in the sky religious morals? Just because your worship the invisible man in the sky does not mean I have to step up to your misguided standards!!!!!

8 hrs · Like
Suzanne Little Merwyn – stop. Just stop.

8 hrs · Like · 1
Shannyn Moore Why don’t I block more asshats? Really?

8 hrs · Like
Jennifer Pastrick oh come on they’re fun … kinda like a cat playing with a dead mouse.

8 hrs · Like · 1
Merwyn Ambrose I am pointing out that castigating counsel for doing his job his juvenile

8 hrs · Like
Jennifer Pastrick and you made your point

8 hrs · Like
Jennifer Pastrick may we move on?

8 hrs · Like
Shannyn Moore I love some attorneys. I don’t have a law degree but I dated a few and could win arguments. Asshat is a great term and I stand by it.

8 hrs · Like · 2
Shannyn Moore I was casting judgement on the state of Alaska hiring said asshat.

8 hrs · Like · 1
Jennifer Pastrick The only reason Hobby Lobby a$$hat won in the SCOTUS ruling was due to right wing activist judges … (stand back) (Merwyn’s head explodes) in three two one…

8 hrs · Like · 1
Merwyn Ambrose Actually you might try reading Balkin’s blog on that

8 hrs · Like
Shannyn Moore Merwyn, go away. You’re simple and I grow weary of stupid.

8 hrs · Like · 2
Ruth Macdonald he’s getting paid to troll,,,,

8 hrs · Like · 1
Jennifer Pastrick How do I get a part time job like that?

8 hrs · Like
Jennifer Pastrick

8 hrs · Like
Linda Scates Merwyn, under a different name, is a lawyer, I believe, which may explain his touchiness. Still, I think this lawyer that Parnell has hired is probably of the uber religious persuasion, judging from the bio.

8 hrs · Like
Arne N Sundt My, that was productive. There is always the if you dont like something on someone elses wall, stfu and move on.

8 hrs · Like · 2
Merwyn Ambrose Excuse me? I’m stupid and simple, lol? And a paid troll? Bravo! My apologies for suggesting your youthful enthusiasm was getting the better of you. Carry on I won’t bother you again

7 hrs · Like
Shannyn Moore Oh look, a moment to be thankful.

7 hrs · Like · 3
Vicki Lee Evans Ok. I’ll say it.

Merwyn, you soggy sack of dicks – SHUT UP.

YES. We get it. The lawyer is doing his job. But he advertises his abject hatred/intolerance for the LGBTQ community, as in “Hey, all you intolerant douchecanoes – if you’re looking to stamp out equality, hire ME! I/we may be on the losing end of an uphill battle, but I’ll sure as hell take your money in the meantime!”

7 hrs · Like · 1
Steven J Heimel The ranks of these zealots are growing thin. The ones that can actually do things, that is, and not just follow others.

7 hrs · Like · 1
<br>

Sean Parnell: Sticking It To Alaskan Employees

Oct2 by Marc Grober

Things about Sean Parnell’s Administration that you may not have been aware of….

Some Alaska Workers Comp insurers refuse to preauthorize medical services after a claim has been accepted. This results in medical providers refusing to provide services and is termed controversion-in-fact. In other words, while purporting to have accepted the claim, the insurer/employer is in fact intimidating medical providers into not providing services for fear that the bills will not be paid.

Henson, Jim. Labyrinth. Adventure, Fantasy, 1986.

This practice has been the subject of numerous cases and most recently the Alaska Supreme Court has essentially confirmed the position of the AWCB that this practice is unlawful and amounts to a controversion because payments for medical services are essentially payable under Alaska law at the time the services are prescribed. Nevertheless, the Liberty companies have continued to engage in these practices.

The worst bit is that faced with the fact that Liberty companies are simply thumbing their noses at Alaska, the Division of Insurance has knowingly determined to take no action with respect to this conduct. Yes, that’s correct. Insurers are intentionally engaged in conduct that you or I would regard as fraudulent, and Parnell’s administration won’t do anything about it.

A tip o’ the hat to the folk at the AWCB who continue to insist that the provisions of the Act be applied fairly across the Board – it has to be disconcerting to realize that your employment may be at risk because you are in fact doing what your job requires you to do, because an administration is sabotaging the very laws it is obliged to uphold.

If you are an employer, I recommend that you immediately contact your Workers Comp carrier and demand that they amend their policy to include a provision that requires prompt preauthorization absent controversion, and if you are an employee, know that you or your medical provider should file a Claim Form with Workers Comp demanding preauthorization and payment for services immediately on determination of a course of treatment.

Yes, the provider can use the Claim Form to obtain preauthorization.

***************

JONATHAN BOCKUS, Employee, Claimant, v. FIRST STUDENT SERVICES, Employer, and SEGDWICK CMS, INC., Adjuster, Defendants. AWCB Decision No. 14-00400 AWCB No. 201302957 Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board March 24, 2014 FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

RICHARD G. KAMITCHIS, Employee, Claimant, v. SWAN EMPLOYER SERVICES, Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer, Defendants. AWCB Decision No. 14-0039 AWCB No. 201203798
Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board March 24, 2014 FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

WILLARD HARRIS, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. M-K RIVERS and ACE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees and Cross-Appellants. Nos. S-14254, S-14262 Supreme Court of Alaska March 14, 2014

The Root of the Problem

Jul16 by Marc Grober

For at least a decade we have seen regular papers published in the Journal of Aboriculture and similar publications regarding the damage to urban infrastructure from tree roots (a query on root deflection in Google Scholar will present dozens of items.). Probably the most widely adopted intervention is hardpacking well drained gravel in order to create an environment too harsh for roots. On the other hand, there has been substantially less discussion of trails that fail because of the subsidence of the foundational material on which the trail is placed (in other words, what happens, for example, when you hard pack gravel over deformable substrate.)

In Anchorage we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars resurfacing trails, but as the recent trail bridge collapse evidences, we seem allergic to monitoring and analyzing what lies below the surface. Does that render the people of Anchorage superficial? Well, I will leave that to the politicians to sort out, but in the mean time any rational person might inquire about possible solutions.

Most cracking in Anchorage trails can be differentiated on whether it is latitudinal or longitudinal. Longitudinal cracks, cracks largely parallel to the direction of the trail, produce what Anchorage bicyclists know as alligator cracks. They are almost universally produced as a result of a failure of the material upon which the the trail is paved. Latitudinal cracks, cracks that run across the trail, are almost universally the result of tree roots, though they can also appear as a result of poor design in elevation changes.

As noted, the most widely adopted method to deflect roots may also contribute to an increase in longitudinal cracking, while most deflection is intended to push roots below the trail, which may still result in eventual damage to the trail. I am proposing an alternative that may offer broad benefits; the use of a trapezoidal utilidor.

No, this is not a covert Maths lesson. To the left you will see an isosceles trapezoid. Note that the sides both angle up. This means that any the trapezoid will reflect up anything that approaches it.

A utilidor is essentially a small underground tunnel. In this case I am proposing a continuous utilidor (composed of interlocking sections) with a trapezoidal cross section; think of a storm drain that isn’t circular.)

The result is an underground system that can be easily used to manage water (which is often problematic in Anchorage with the change in seasons) but can also be used to host things like fiber optic cabling. It is impervious to flora because roots are deflected to the surface (no threat of shallow or deep disruption of the trail) and based on its rigidity and its locking nature, puts an end to longitudinal cracking.

The utilidor could be produced locally of concrete or even cast out of the tons of glass that Anchorage produces (glass is very strong and durable.) A paving base of greenboard or similar material can be placed on the utilidor depending on its composition to shield the utilidor from paving activities. The sections of the utilidor could be produced as a single extrusion, or built up of 2 or 3 interlocking section (for example, one could have center sections of varying widths to be sandwiched between the same triangular sections.)

Utilidor sections could be manufactured in Alaska and then sold not only in Anchorage but elsewhere in the state. They could be engineered to support target loads (for example to support a 15000 pound truck and equipment.)

Installation will be a bit more expensive as it will require removal of more material than has been the practice with use of crushed gravel, though the height of the trapezoid could be adjusted based on testing, development, and specific application.

Yes, the initial costs would likely be greater than they are now, and yes, I have to acknowledge that Alaskans are typically allergic to investing in infrastructure, unless we are talking a bridge to nowhere, or a development that will raise the value of a politician’s investment, but if you are tired of whining about the poor condition of the traisl, and about being unable to use the trails every couple of years because they are in such a shambles, then maybe you should consider whether the folk in charge at present need an opportunity to work somewhere else?

Pardon me, but….

A serious place for some serious discussion

Author Archives: Marc Grober

Through the crack, sprightly

Pretty Please (with a wooden bridge on top)?

The Divided

The Anti-Rogue

Shannyn Moore and Gang Go “Lord of the Flies”