Author Archives: Marc Grober

The State Militant; militia in the 21st century

by Marc Grober

With the rise of the “militia movement” in Alaska ( http://www.alaska.net/~cadrecc/index.html, http://anchoragemilitia.com/, http://www.centralalaskamilitia.com/ ) it is time to effectively address this potential threat to our civil society. That is to say that the federal prosecution of the members of the Alaska Peacemakers Militia, being reactive, is inadequate on its face. See the Fairbanks Newsminer for a discussion of Shaffer Cox and his role in this militia.

Not withstanding the bizarre ideation of these groups, the US Constitution puts all militia under federal control. The US Constitution, Article I Section 8,  in pertinent part, authorizes Congress:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The US Constitution reserves to the states certain responsibilities with respect to militia.  Under the Alaska Constitution, that authority is largely exercised by the Governor of the State. Alaska Constitution Article III § 19. Military Authority provides:

The governor is commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the State. He may call out these forces to execute the laws, suppress or prevent insurrection or lawless violence, or repel invasion. The governor, as provided by law, shall appoint all general and flag officers of the armed forces of the State, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. He shall appoint and commission all other officers.

In sum, the Governor would clearly be the commander of our various self-proclaimed militias, and as command-in-chief the Governor has ultimate responsibility for command of these organizations. Either the Governor must command these organizations,  or they must be disbanded as unauthorized frauds and dangerous gangs; thugs in paramilitary drag.

It is clear that the Governor HAS NOT taken his responsibilities via-a-vis Article III Section 19 seriously, not having seized command of these organizations (or in the alternative, not having ordered the Attorney General to terminate their activities as apparent criminal enterprises or otherwise.) In having failed in those responsibilities it is high time the Governor was called to task for his oversight, negligence, or malfeasance (the last case perhaps recommending impeachment)  for putting our society in danger.

Perhaps most heinous, is that while the Governor seems to continually wish to take power from the federal government (he has inordinately invested in lawsuit after lawsuit, attacking the role of the federal government on matters ranging from wildlife management to health care) he has failed to wield the responsibility the federal Constitution affords him, with the result that the Department of Justice was forced to prosecute those in such organizations apparently engaged in preparing to commit acts of homicide against our judges. For shame, Governor! For shame!

aknatlguardpatch

Twixt Scylla and Charybis

by Marc Grober

Alaska’s Governor, Sean Parnel,  would have Alaskans agree to oil tax reform. Many read this tax reform and an effort to move revenue from the State’s ledger to that of BigOil. As one expect, this results in a polarization and we end up with an all or nothing paradigm.  The Greeks saw their world in very colorfully and it is from them that we inherit the concept of sailing twixt Scylla and Charybdis, and we have been referencing that method of recognizing that we are on the horns of a dilemma in those terms for centuries.

But this essay is not an attempt to scold the Governor for taunting Homer’s Charybdis despite Circe’s warning (so many others have already done that so effectively,  to no avail), though in any discussion of matters Alaskan, natural resource policy is on the table. The focus here is on another aspect of “the middle”;  as  Euclid has revealed to hundreds of thousand of students, the middle is equidistant from the poles.

And at this point you are no doubt wondering whatever could be the real point, and whether we might not get to it before tea. The point, as those of you who are clever have likely already guessed, is that industry arises at those places convenient to the resources necessary. The Rust Belt, by way of example, did not arise magically. If one considers a map of the US Northeast and note the location of the iron ore, the location of coal deposits, and the transportation resources in the area,  it becomes quickly apparent why steel became king there.  And the king drove the economies of the region and the country to incredible heights.

Alaska sits on a number of prodigious reservoirs of natural gas. There are some, their eyes lit with a green glow,  who would (as quickly as someone else’s money might allow) ship all this natural gas elsewhere. Unfortunately, such a policy produces the least possible economic benefit for the people of the State of Alaska. Why?  Because the failure to use the resources in-state means Alaskans do not get the additional multiplier effects that would arise if the gas were consumed in-state.

The challenge or Alaska is not to figure out how to get rid of the gas as quickly as possible, despite the advice from BigOil accountants. The challenge is to find industries, local industries, that are viable because the gas is HERE. Japan’s growth is a reverse example of this situation. Japanese growth was largely based on Japan’s ability to import energy. Alaska has that energy in abundance, but those wishing to use that energy elsewhere want Alaskans to believe that we must sell off that energy to those smart enough to use it.  Are we, as Alaskans, really that ignorant?

Let’s compare the two policies.  On the one hand the argument is that the only way to address this resource is to pump it out and sell it as quickly as possible. Perhaps this will provide a decade or two of revenue, and there will be jobs, largely for those who come to Alaska specifically to take advantage of this policy.  On the other hand, if the resource never leaves the state,  it could fuel a variety of local industry for a much longer time period, increase Alaska’s economy by many more times, and keep the state from continuing to be a boom and bust economy, slave to the extraction industry. As Dr. Lee Huskey has often noted, a robust northern economy needs to be differentiated, and there is no escaping that means keeping BigOil in its place.

So we are on the horns of another dilemma. The safe course, the middle way, is to be the middle. Be the focal point. Be the cauldron of Alaska’s future, not the empty husk that once feted BigOil. Is Alaska up to charter its own destiny? Perhaps not as local politics suggest that those in power are short-sighted quick-buckers, preaching independence, but effecting paternalistic policies socially and economically. Perhaps John Coghill needs to have a sit-down with Jack and talk a bit about local economics…..

scylla_and_charybis

The New Arms Race

by Marc Grober

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states in pertinent part, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What are we to make of this? We are besieged today by “textualists” (not withstanding Paul McGreal’s cogent argument) arguing that a personal armory is the salvation of democracy. If we don, for a moment, the texturalist’s robes, what do we see in this Amendment? The Amendment says “people” – not voters, residents, citizens, adults, or ‘white men of virtue who own property and are well liked’.

Who are these “people”?  People are, generally defined as “humans”. [NB: Cicero fans may now attempt to interrupt to argue populus versus civitas, and while this dispute might offer some intriguing questions for future discussion, we don’t like these elitist pedants, and, as either view’s result proves the point that kids are people too (certainly, if an embryo is a person, a kid must be a person), we will rule these classicists out of order and move on.]

Where were we? Ah, yes. And if kids are people, then we had better not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms, as that would clearly be unconstitutional. To take that one step further as the textural positivist is want to do, if our Propounding Pops thought it was so important to make sure no one disarmed kids that they Amended the Constitution to note it, then the extension of that concern would surely be an unwritten endorsement that the more kids armed, the safer our society.

Certainly arming the kids makes more sense than trusting kids’ safety at school to “a bunch of union thugs”, and trusting the thugs’ judgment as to whom to shoot. Do you really want an NEA member (someone known to you to be a communist) taking out (as in offing, not sending to the office) YOUR kid because he pulled a Nerf gun at lunch? Why put the safety of kids in the hands of Bolsheviks, when you can arm the kids, nay, MUST arm the kids?  To look at the larger picture, if we can’t keep kids off university campuses with guns, we clearly can’t keep kids out of public schools with guns, and if that is the case we had better make sure that every kid showing up for Kindergarten has a Glock on each hip.

Extra chocolate milk if the guns are clean and loaded.GattlingStroller

An Open Invitation to the Anchorage Museum

by Marc Grober

I recently went on a tear about the Anchorage Museum refusing to publish the images of the work submitted but rejected by the selected juror. The question was quite rightly put to me, “Why should the Museum make those images available publicly?” Below are my initial thoughts on the matter.

In a place like Alaska art can light up he dark days of winter and and reflect the exhilaration of our summers and it does artist and art viewer immense emotional good to share that experience, and as many have argued (including the Alaska State Council on the Arts,  the Arts are good for the economy.

But sharing one’s work is just not that easy in Alaska. Dozens and dozens of Alaska artists are desperate to have the public see their work and have no outlet for showing it.  Even those who are lucky enough to have a gallery agree to carry their work re limited in their reach.

And that is not the worst part. The worst part is that despite the existence of ASCA, there is no place where Alaskan artists can publicly exhibit their work to a public that is hungry to see what Alaskans can do. This is especially the case if an artist does not produce “Native” art or “Alaskana”.

Yet in soliciting submissions for Alaskan in EFF and All-Alaska yearly, the Anchorage Museum receives hundreds of images of work being produced by Alaskans every year. Work for which the artists are only asking acknowledgement.

Every year I ask the Museum about making those images public, and every year the Museum comes up with another lame reason to refuse my request. Every artist understands the caprice inherent in a juried show (especially where there is only one juror) but when such shows are at such a premium because they are so few, it is simply inexcusable that the submitted work is not made available to the public for viewing.

This year the excuse is particularly lame;  the Museum doesn’t have the staff to accomplish this.  I immediately piped up that I wold be happy to take that on but was essentially ignored. Moreover, I am sure that others would be just as glad to volunteer to take on the burden that the Museum believes is so heavy. I think it might take all of a day (and that only because it is my guess that the Museum has yet to enter the 21st Century vis-a-vis their handling of the images, lol.)

No,  I am not advocating that the Museum manange the shows in any way differently than they have been, save that they make the images of the work that was rejected available for public review online. Whatever the argument for this kind of juried show, I am not disputing the Museums efforts to go forward with what it  wants to do, whether or not it has anything to do with art, the public or anything else. I am simply suggesting that if the Museum is going to encourage hundreds of Alaskan to submit their art, then the public should be entitled to see what is not selected. Whether that reflects somehow on what the Museum does or doesn’t do or impacts what the Museum might do in future is some other issue for some other person.

The Museum should not be promoting the skewed tastes of this or that juror; it should be celebrating the breadth and depth of Alaska’s creativity and productivity. If juried show accomplishes that, so much the better, but many artists have already given up submitting work to such exhibitions in that there is no rhyme nor reason in selection, as has been acknowledged with respect to juried shows across the nation.

It would be nice if Alaska for once was the exception in the arts, and promoted its artists, as opposed to discouraging them.

[subscribe2]

Thank You, Mr. President

by Marc Grober

This was written for NPR’s Three Minute Fiction as an historical exercise.  I hope you enjoy it.

Thank you, Mr. President

I stood looking down at Momma’s grave. At the end she’d said she’d seen a white light. “Providence come to take me to the Lord:”, she’d said. Then she smiled like a spring day and was gone. Seemed to me that every time Providence showed up, something terrible be a happening….. Looking up I seen Sheriff drive up and wave me over. Providence seemed to me to be most persistent this May of 1932.

As I walked over to the Sheriff’s car I thought about all the stories Momma told me. ‘Bout how we were mostly Cherokee from a place far to the East of Missouri and how we survived a death march. How we came to be slaves then freed. But the end of every story were the same; Providence had seen us through. She’d said my doubts bout Providence would lay her low one day.

“How old are you, boy?”, the Sheriff asked, driving t’ Smith’s. Momma and I sharecropped there, and worked his farm too.

“12 Sunday, sir.”

“Boy, Smith and the others are selling out. Money’s in the bank, none of you colored own the land yonder and you need to clear out. No trouble now. Get your things and move on.”

We’d only gone a few dozen yards but I knew there weren’t nothing to go back for.

“Stop the car Sheriff, I’m getting out.”

The Sheriff let me off in front of the Bank, and just as he drove off a rush of folk coming running through the doors of the Bank. The first one run right into me and knocked me clear over and I landed on my face in the dirt. I seen them tear down the street and the Sheriff round and tear after them, with most of the town after him. Getting to my feet I realized I’d fallen on a small canvas bag. Inside was full of green paper I’d never seen before. I got to my feet a bit dizzy and made my way back to the colored church.

The Pastor’s wife screamed, “Oh bloody terror!” and fainted away. Old Jake, the handyman, told me to sit myself down. He seen to the Pastor’s wife and run off to get the Pastor.

Jake and the Pastor got to cleaning me up and it was then they seen the bag. “What you got there, boy?”, Jake barked. I’d near forgot that I had it and the story come tumbling out. Jake told me to sit and rest awhile and he and Pastor Wright went to talking quiet like and left the room.

Pastor and Mrs. Wright drove Jake and me to Joplin that very day. Jake had worked the trains and had family in Chicago, and he would take me to them. We boarded the colored car, there was some shouting and with the Pastor and his wife waving good-bye, the train gave a lurch and we were on our way. I watched out the window as everything I’d ever known disappeared behind us.

And here I was. Jake snored next to me as old men do. He said the bag of 100 new 20s was a “windfall”, but Momma knew what it really was. I felt in my pocket for the one bill Jake let me hold on to, and looking around to see if any one was watching, I snuck another look. I read the name on the bill, ANDREW JACKSON. and smiled.

“Thank you, Momma. Thank you, Providence. And thank YOU, Mister President…..

A Republican Epiphany

by Marc Grober

Sometimes, especially I suppose when we are annoyed with a specific problem, what should appear obvious to us is hidden by our very focus; we have simply dialed out what benefit we might obtain from Occam’s Razor and forgotten our Holmes. And that is how I twisted in trying to explain the zealousness of GOP proponents who are of traditional minority ethnicity and race.

Suddenly I realized that what we had here was a subscription to the concept of a societal lottery.  No matter that only 1 in a million will be able to make it up the economic ladder,  the promise of America is only that you have that one in a million chance, and that is supposed to provide contentment to the masses, and just as in the case of the Lotto,  the balance of the population is supposed to feed the kitty so that someone, in scraping the cream off the dear financial tithes of the poor for themselves, can fund that  one in a million opportunity.

This is the siren call offered by Mia Love and the other high priests of the GOP Promise, to be contrasted with the pains and perils imposed by the Democratic party in its attempt to shackle the poor in an eternal state of being redistributees,  slaves to their own penury. In the dsytopic vision of the GOP, hope has been slain and promise drawn and quartered by the supposedly helping hand of the left, a hand which appears velvet but imparts the iron of a failed fascist society. Lions and tigers and bears!

Love et al can’t rationally expect anyone to buy the concept that everyone in the US can rise (though they are willing to accept the devotion of the silly and the true believers.)  So they offer up the Lottery System of the US (undoubtedly to be found in the US Constitution,  but I will have to get back to you on that) to replace the historic concept of the roll of government in the US, the American System. The GOP will give you the same hope that you get from the Lotto, and that should be enough for anyone.

Our Ignorant Political Heart

by Marc Grober

While E. J. Dionne does a great job of presenting to the reader the ebb and flow of communitarian historical analysis of the 20th Century in Our Divided Political Heart, he does himself a disservice in not going further back. No mention of our Puritan heritage is complete without understanding that the tensions between individual and community addressed by the Propounding Pops were very much the same tensions faced in the British Interregnum.

Michael Winship, in “Algernon Sidney’s Calvinist Republicanism,” Journal of British Studies (2010), ably argues that Algernon Sidney was very much a devoted Calvinist. And, of course,  it is widely recognized that Sidney was held in high regard by the scriveners of our American history, as Chris Baker’s historical note argues.

So what? We need to remember that all those folk who admired Sidney were also well studied in the political events that wrought his demise. While Sidney promoted the Godly republic, an enterprise in no small part brought to these shores not only by the Puritans, but by the emissaries that Cromwell himself sent to America, The Founding Fathers eschewed the religious nature of Sidney’s vision, and built a wall through it. They essentially made the same Hobbesian choice their English forbears had done, choosing what amounted to an enlightened modified monarchy over the Commonwealth.

For all intents and purposes the United States is founded on the enlightened rejection of those reforming saints, and one supposes they still haunt the United States today, as they have done, provoking the occasional religious extravaganzas to which the US is prone. Dionne’s only misstep is ignore the fact that Algernon Sidney is alive and well, and he is committed to the belief that community health stems only from the deep and abiding faith in Calvinism. Three Monkeys

Anchorage making headway on valuing human life

by Marc Grober

Honestly, I have a hard time seeing putting a police officer on the street without a partner.  Just the effects of TV drama?  I don’t think so. I just see approaching a potentially violent situation without backup as creating unacceptable risks, and that goes for the police officer, the private citizen, and anyone close enough to be hit by flying lead.  While the law in Alaska expects people to retreat if possible (until Democratic State Senator Wielechowski has the opportunity to reintroduce the ALEC crafted stand your ground legislation he sponsored last session), what are our expectations of a police officer confronting an individual ‘wielding a stick’? Anchorage decided to find out earlier this week.

Police received a number of calls about a man creating a disturbance in Mountain View (blocks from a substation created to keep a lid on disturbance in this neighborhood.)  Callers indicated that the man was likely intoxicated and bellicose, was screaming and yelling and had just attacked a dog. One officer drove up 15 minutes later, apparently spotted the man creating the disturbance, who on seeing the officer started walking towards the officer in an aggressive manner with the stick. The officer fired several rounds at the man, killing him, as another officer drove up. A disturbance which had been going on for over 15 minutes without any apparent physical injuries to anyone was over in seconds with one man dead at the hands of the very persons called to resolve the problem.

Should the veteran officer have simply kept his distance until back-up arrived? Who really wants to second guess an officer who perceives himself being attacked? I think such questions simply scapegoat the officer while the real culprits skate by. The real issue here is that the officer really had no non-lethal option, and the real reason that a non-lethal option wasn’t available is named Mayor Dan Sullivan. No, Mayor Dan was not there at the time,  but in a very real sense he might as well pulled the trigger himself.

According to the Anchorage Daily News, while ‘Alaska State Troopers and some law enforcement agencies in the Lower 48 outfit all officers with Tasers, but in Anchorage only about 35 to 40 percent of officers carried the “less-than-lethal” devices last year, according to funding request the department made to the 2011 Legislature.’ And the paper goes on to state that an Anchorage Police Department spokesperson, Dave Parker went on to indicate that, ‘In the case of the Mountain View shooting, police procedures likely would not have allowed the officer to use a Taser even if he had one, Parker said. That’s because at least two officers would need to be on hand, one to use the Taser and one to back up with lethal force, if necessary.’

What we are seeing, then, is a very cynical approach to urban law enforcement. The current administration apparently believes that the true cost of the lives lost to such exchanges is less than the cost of ensuring that no APD officer has to address street crime without a partner.  One can imagine the Anchorage Risk Manager tallying things up; what’s the cost of killing half a dozen ‘unimportant’ people as compared to the cost of putting enough of those greedy union cops on the payroll? You want to know what the average value of a police killed citizen in Anchorage is? This week it was arguably about $100,000, but wait till the end of the year and divide the cost of providing adequate police officers by the number dying such unnecessary deaths. There you will find Mayor Dan’s pound of flesh.

Why is “Planning” a Dirty Word?

by Marc Grober

For those watching, “21” now seems to be generating as much nervousness as “666”, from the world-wide cabal associated with Agenda 21, to the purported local attempt to enslave Anchorage through the initial Title 21 rewrite. It seems that the crypto-conspiracists see “planning” as anathema to civil liberty. While those less hysterical may simply see the hands of the likes of Karl Rove and the Koch brothers at work (is there something about the letter “K”…..)  the unfortunate truth is that, as a society, we often produce lousy planning.

An old saw, likely promoted by those who have been recently offered their freedom from employment, advises, “Don’t sweat the small stuff.” It is the small stuff, however, that ensures your that Mars probe doesn’t crash into the planetary surface, and the same applies to designing the urban environment of Anchorage’s future.  Take the example of the newly redone bicycle trail that passes by the corner of Bragaw and Northern Lights Boulevard (you’ll find me at the fancy green railing on the south side of the street.) But watch your step!   You probably don’t want the water pouring across the trail from the black, brackish pools of the fen to the south soaking your new kicks.

This piece of trail,  the most important bike path in the part of Anchorage most heavily used by bicycles, connecting Muldoon to downtown,  was closed for two years during construction of an extension, that while very nice, did not need to close down this critical thoroughfare.  A year after the trail opened again, the cracks are already appearing and here, at the corner of Bragaw and Northern Lights, you’ll notice a length of some 30 feet of trail covered with run-off making its way to the street across the trail (and yes,  it IS treacherous in the Spring and Fall when it frosts and freezes.) From here to Nunaka Park this sight is all too common, and will eventually result in expensive repair, or worse, a decaying infrastructure. Why?  Because someone at the MOA Planning Department didn’t sweat the small stuff.

If the Municipal planners can’t manage a bike trail that has proper drainage and doesn’t turn into crumbs in 2 years, can we depend on them to do much else? Conspiracy? No. Just sloppy, negligent work. Do you want the person who is responsible for the water running over the bike trail also responsible for planning the storm sewer next to your home?  I thought not.

Voting Issues in the US; HAVA na gila

by Marc Grober

Oregon has been experimenting with voting by mail. While there may be downsides to accompany the positives (see, e.g. http://archive.fairvote.org/turnout/mail.htm) The Carter-Baker Report suggests that Vote by Mail (VBM) may increase turnout by 10% in low profile election and does not bring new voters to the process,  but it does appear to have an impact on ballot integrity . Washington also does vote by mail.  Oregon is now moving to include e-mail voting  and even offer the ability to vote by ipad.  The Oregon voting site is at http://oregonvotes.org/

While the efforts in the Pacific North West may improve the voting experience by increasing the period during which one may vote and providing alternatives to to using suspect voting machines, most jurisdictions in the US still use one of the least “fair” voting systems available,  and most Americans haven’t a clue about the relative benefits of PR, or Proportional Representation, as opposed to the “single-member district plurality system” in use in most jurisdictions in the US today.

Douglas J Amy at Mt Holyoke College has put together an online library on the subject. Amy is also the author of a number of books on the subject, one of which is available online in pdf format and another which is a comprehensive extension of the materials published on the Mt. Holyoke web site.   He not only explains the difference between the typical US system and PR,  he also provides an accessible explanation of different types of voting systems.

Some other resources on voting systems?

  • Of course there is a wikipedia page,  which affords a decent introduction to the subject as well as some excellent links and references for further study.
  • My friend David Lippman has a published a wonderful online book, Math in Society, which addresses voting issues in various systems and would be a welcome addition to any high school math teacher’s arsenal of resources. It can be downloaded from David’s site as well a accessed online via scribd
  • Another excellent resource on voting systems, this one with a European twist, is provided by the Electoral Reform Society

The title of the note? “Gila” is the English transliteration of a Hebrew word for joy, and “na” is us. Together with “hava” (be) they are used in the Hebrew song “hava na gila”, or let us be joyful.  Of course, HAVA in this case is the Help America Vote Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.3295:  For a list of resources on the Act, see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_America_Vote_Act