Alaska Pride is a political blog dealing with issues of particular interest to Alaskans and those interested in Alaska. As Alaska's most politically incorrect blog, Alaska Pride addresses multiple issues ranging from politics, the environment, religion, and even race. I also seek to educate Outsiders about the real Alaska - why we cost more, and why it's a worthwhile investment for America.
The latest member of Congress to take a shot at no-bid contracts for Alaska Native corporations is Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS). He's introduced H.R.6447, designed to be a companion bill to Senator Claire McCaskill's S.3959. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Small Business and the House Committee on Natural Resources for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker. You can read the full text of H.R.6447 HERE.
-- Amends the Small Business Act to exclude from the definition of "Indian tribe" any Alaska Native Corporation (ANC) or Alaska Native Village (ANV).
-- Amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to provide that, for purposes of eligibility for procurement contracts provided through the Small Business Administration (SBA), whether an ANC or ANV is socially or economically disadvantaged shall be determined by the SBA Administrator according to eligibility standards for SBA 8(a) general small business loans. Makes members of socially and economically disadvantaged ANCs or ANVs eligible for such loans.
-- Directs the Administrator to apply to small businesses owned by an ANC or ANV the competitive thresholds for awarding SBA sole source contracts that are applicable to small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.
-- Prohibits the Administrator from extending or waiving, for small businesses owned by an ANC or ANV, the time limitations applicable to participants in the small business capital ownership development program. Outlines annual report requirements for program participants who are ANCs or ANVs.
-- Requires the Administrator to amend SBA regulations to incorporate amendments made by this Act.
Earlier on November 17th, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced S.3959. Senator McCaskill also happens to be the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight. The bill has been read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. You can read the full text of S.3959 HERE.
On December 2nd, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 333-79 to formally censured Rep. Charles Rangel (D-New York), who was found guilty in November by an ethics panel of 11 counts of financial and fundraising misconduct. Rangel became the 23rd congressman in the history of the House to be censured. The censure is designated H.Res. 1737. To their credit, 170 of Wrangel's fellow Democrats joined in the Yes vote; read the full roll call vote HERE. Rangel was among those voting No.
But among the 79 voting against censure were two Republicans; Rep. Peter King (R-NY), and our very own Congressman Don Young. The Alaska Politics blog reported that Young said that he has never voted to censure anyone, and that he believes such judgment should be up to the voters rather than the Congress. This is rather weak reasoning, since a Congressional censure is an expression of peer disapproval and can be considered a form of peer discipline. Congressman Young has been under fire from some House Republicans over the recently-and-favorably-concluded Department of Justice investigation of him as well as his refusal to join in a House Republican boycott of earmarks, and was stripped of minority leadership positions as a result.
Congressman Young did vote Yes in favor of an amendment which would have delivered a milder expression of disapproval of Rangel. Alaska Politics said it would have lightened the punishment to a rebuke, but MSNBC more correctly describes it as a "reprimand". The difference between a reprimand and censure is that censure is accompanied by a formal oral rebuke; Rangel would stand before his colleagues at the front of the chamber, known as the "well", where the resolution of censure would be read by the Speaker of the House. In any event, the amendment to reduce the punishment to a reprimand failed, with 267 voting No, and only 146 voting Yes.
Rangel was convicted in an ethics trial by a panel of lawmakers on 11 counts of ethical wrongdoing, including his use of House letterheads and staff to solicit money for a college center named after him. Rangel also filed a decade's worth of misleading financial statements understating his assets and converted a subsidized New York apartment — designated for residential use — into a campaign office. Other tenants who violated their lease got evicted. The tax issue was a sore point for several members of the ethics committee, who said it was especially egregious that a former chairman of the House's tax-writing committee failed for 17 years to pay taxes on the income from his island villa. It's unclear how much Rangel owes in taxes. An ethics committee document indicated he owed $16,775 as of 1990, but Rangel has paid some of his back taxes.
Since Charles Rangel is Black, some people might be interested in how House members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted. It's actually quite easy; of the 39 House members of the CBC, all of whom are Democrat, only one (Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama) voted Yes. Two (Reps. Alcee Hastings and Kendrick Meek of Florida) abstained. The other 36 voted No, which means that 92 percent of the CBC voted against censuring one of their own homeboys. This constituted 45 percent of the Democratic No votes. In contrast, only 30 percent of all Democrats combined voted against censuring Rangel.
Now tell me the CBC didn't vote their race. Great "role models" for the Black community, eh?
Anchorage Daily News reporter Julia O'Malley has been focusing considerable coverage upon homeless issues in Anchorage; you can scroll through all her posts HERE. Being homeless in Anchorage is different than in Los Angeles; about 50 Fahrenheit degrees different at this moment. That's because as I write this, it's 5 degrees Fahrenheit outside.
Today she provides us a glimpse into the Brother Francis Shelter, operated by Catholic Social Services (gallery of photos available HERE). The economy and the weather have caused an uptick in the daily count of clients; set up to house about 150 people, the shelter recently housed 202 people, with an additional 83 sleeping next door at Bean's Cafe (capacity 124). That's a total of 285 people with nowhere else to go -- almost twice what's normal this time of year.
The problem is exacerbated by a decline in individual donations, which are down 60 percent, or about $30,000 below what is usual this time of year. The shelter has a total budget of just over $1 million. While the Brother Francis Shelter can always use financial contributions, they also need in-kind donations of blankets, sheets, towels, clothes, and especially cold-weather gear and boots. Donation information available HERE. Another major local source of aid for the homeless is the Anchorage Gospel Rescue Mission.
While the shelter serves alcoholics and others with some form of mental illness (estimated to afflict around 40 percent of the clients), it also serves the working poor. Many of the working poor many are under-employed, working part time or less with no benefits. They can't get enough hours to get a place. Furthermore, the vacancy rate at the low end of the rental market is very low, and even then, rent is expensive. The average market rent for a one bedroom with utilities is around $800. A minimum-wage worker, employed full time, brings in around $1,000 a month after taxes. Government low-income housing assistance program is maxed at the moment, with 7,000 people on the waiting list. By the way, Julia O'Malley didn't mention that people are often required to pay the first and last month's rent in advance before moving into an apartment; in addition, utility providers may also require a deposit. So it might cost as much as $2,000 up front just to move into a place.
On Friday November 26th, 2010, the Anchorage Downtown Partnership organized a seasonal tree-lighting ceremony at Town Square Park. Other sponsors of the event included AT&T, Furniture Classics, Anchorage Press, Salvation Army, and Alsco. It kicked off at 5 P.M. with a performance by the Salvation Army Band and the Anchorage Concert Chorus, after which at 6 P.M., the tree was lit. Afterwards, kids got a chance to meet Santa and his reindeer; the organizers boasted of having the only celebration in the nation featuring a team of nine reindeer pulling a sleigh.
Generating some concern was the fact that the ceremony was called a "Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony" instead of a Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony, even though the custom of a tree is historically associated with the Christmas season. Local conservative talk show host Dan Fagan took issue with this during one of his programs, characterizing the use of the term "holiday tree" as a cave-in to political correctness. I'm certain that the Anchorage Downtown Partnership intended no offense by calling it a "holiday tree"; indeed, they probably lapsed into politically correct mode without even thinking about it.
But how did we reach this point where we instinctively shy away from calling a spade by its right name? The fact is, without realizing it, the Anchorage Downtown Partnership fired another shot in the war against Christmas. But who started the war -- and who continues to orchestrate it? In the video embedded below, Dr. David Duke attempts to cut through the symptoms and get to the actual cause -- and those who cause it. One of the primary combatants waging the war against Christmas is the Anti-Defamation League, a group dedicated to promoting Jewish supremacism under the guise of "stopping the defamation of the Jewish people".
I zero in on the Anti-Defamation League not only because it is the most prominent and internationally-renowned Jewish advocacy group, but because its head, Abe Foxman, is one of the most obnoxious and offensive spokespersons for the Jewish community, although that community certainly did not elect him to represent them. In their section entitled "December Dilemma", the ADL purports to dictate to us how we should celebrate the winter holidays. On the main page, the ADL writes, "The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion to all Americans — including young schoolchildren — by prohibiting the government from endorsing or promoting any particular religious point of view. This prohibition has led courts to ban such plainly coercive religious activities in public schools as organized prayer and the teaching of creationism".
Fair enough. But then the ADL goes further, to suggest that the mere display of symbols they consider religious can also be "coercive" because they can allegedly influence impressionable young minds. In their section on holiday displays, the ADL claims that the display of a Christmas creche in the public square is not permissible while a Jewish menorah is permissible, even though both are religious symbols. They write, "In the context of displays on public property, the Supreme Court has ruled that a Christmas crèche standing alone is impermissible, but a Christmas tree is permissible because it has become such a secular symbol of the winter holiday season. It also has found that a Chanukah menorah is a symbol with both secular and religious meanings, and its display on public property within a predominantly secular display is permissible".
Why shouldn't a Christmas crèche not be permissible, but a Jewish menorah permissible? Because the ADL is not interested in true religious liberty, but is interested in promoting Judaism by suppressing Christianity. This is why the ADL has acquired the reputation of being a Jewish supremacist organization. The "December Dilemma" is not so much an issue in Alaska as it is elsewhere, but as Lower 48 yuppies move up here, they bring their political correctness and corresponding intolerance with them.
If a Jewish man were to wish me a Happy Hanukah on the street, I would wish him a Happy Hanukah in return. Why would I take offense? The guy is extending me good wishes. Consequently, if I wish a Jewish guy a Merry Christmas, he should wish me a Merry Christmas or some other derivative of season's greetings in return. He should take no offense, because none was intended.
The whole problem with all this diversity and sensitivity is that we are not taught so much to celebrate differences, but to learn newer and more imaginative ways to take offense. We've become a nation of sensitized sissies. We need to break out of this mold. Never apologize for what you say if you intended no offense -- an apology can be considered a sign of weakness under those circumstances.
