This editorial first appeared in the Alaska Journal of Commerce:
An initiative governing resource development is on the Aug. 28 primary ballot and it was only a matter of time before the backers of Proposition 2 to reinstate a coastal zone management program played the “Outsider” card.
Here we go again.
After finance disclosures were filed with the state for June and July, the Alaska Sea Party put out a press release decrying the fact the group has been outraised 10-1 by their opponents who were characterized as “foreign” and “Outside” companies.
Notably, while accusing these companies of a nefarious scheme to buy an election and silence Alaskans, the Sea Party did not attempt to refute the main argument against Prop. 2 — that it will inject a tremendous amount of new uncertainties into a permitting process already fraught with them.
Those favoring Prop. 2 also continue to imply that they are simply restoring the previous coastal zone management program when that is hardly the case.
Instead, the only counter to the Vote No on 2 group by the Sea Party appears to be that their position is illegitimate because of the location of their company headquarters.
These attacks on “foreign” or “Outside” companies participating in the political process in a state where they have invested billions of dollars and employ tens of thousands of Alaskans aren’t just wrong. They are undemocratic, and, in the end, stunningly hypocritical.
We’ve seen this argument about “foreigners” deployed repeatedly against the developers of the proposed Pebble mine project, Anglo American of London and Northern Dynasty Minerals of Vancouver.
The constant use of “foreign” as a pejorative to cast these companies in an unfavorable light is farcical while bordering on xenophobic. No one believes the opposition to Pebble would somehow melt away or diminish if Anglo American and Northern Dynasty were headquartered in Alaska.
We’re not surprised to see this volley fired against the opponents of Prop. 2. The Sea Party has only raised about $63,000, but at least a third of that came in two donations from opponents of the Pebble mine.
While the anti-Pebble forces have no problem with a consortium of Japanese-owned fish processors coming out against the project, we are supposed to believe there is something wrong with a Japanese mining company, Pogo owner Sumitomo, contributing to the “Vote No on 2” effort.
Our courts, our airwaves and our ballot boxes are open to all sides and viewpoints. Yet the Prop. 2 and the anti-Pebble forces act like these venues should only be available to those they agree with.
Such double standards are unfortunately ubiquitous in Alaska.
When Lake and Peninsula Borough passed a residency requirement stricter than state standards and rejected some ballots in the 2010 and 2011 elections, a lawsuit was filed and the ordinance was overturned to great cheers from the anti-Pebble forces.
Yet when the Pebble Partnership uses the courts to challenge an equally constitutionally dubious Lake and Pen ordinance that would supersede the state role in permitting, the same folks cry foul.
Similarly, environmental groups will sue, sue and sue again to contest permitting documents and decisions, yet they have rushed to embrace a scientifically indefensible assessment of mining impacts on the Bristol Bay watershed.
Environmental activists would never stand for a document as incomplete as the EPA assessment to be used to allow resource development, yet they have no problem looking the other way in this case because they think it can help them short-circuit the permitting process to shut Pebble down.
In December 2010, a coalition of fishing groups and the State of Alaska sued the federal government, and eventually won, on the grounds that National Marine Fisheries Service didn’t follow the law when it imposed wide-ranging cod and mackerel closures in the western Aleutians based on a theory the action would protect food sources for endangered Steller sea lions.
A federal judge agreed with the state and fishermen, and noted the resulting economic harm in ordering NMFS to prepare a full environmental impact statement to support the action.
Like free speech, the rule of law is not a one-way street, and stakeholders who decry the feds cutting corners when it works against them cannot credibly argue that the same government should do an end-run around the process when it suits them.
There are plenty of arguments in favor of Prop. 2 or against the Pebble mine, but the location of corporate headquarters is hardly one of them.
Comments (23)
Add commentThanks for spending your
Thanks for spending your money in Alaskan advertising markets. But I'm still voting yes on 2, so that Alaskans retain control over our resources, both at the local and state levels.
Got four more "no" ads in the PO Box this morning.
@Rough cut/
Why do you HATE Alaska so my that you want it destroyed by the improper use of our coasts?
junk read...
"Notably, while accusing these companies of a nefarious scheme to buy an election and silence Alaskans, the Sea Party did not attempt to refute the main argument against Prop. 2 — that it will inject a tremendous amount of new uncertainties into a permitting process already fraught with them."
The Sea Party has done everything it can to refute the "No on 2" party claims of compexity and over-regulation. How do you refute the existence of the tooth fairy? By arguing against it or ignoring the outrageous claim?
The sea party has avoided dropping to the low level of No on 2, because they have the facts on their side. The No on 2 party just makes outrageous claims with absolutely no evidence backing them. Look at the articles, or statements made by the No on 2 party. No facts. They can't even provide one example of specific over-regulation or complexity. They just make the assumption that more than half of Alaskans are complacent enough to listen to them without realizing it's just smoke and mirrors.
Attacks on the outside companies is pointing out a very important fact: The No on 2 party has attracted more outsiders with money. Why wouldn't this be the case? They support no coastal management program. They just say they do... It's like going to a car dealership and the first thing they ask is: "What can I do to put you in a car today!"
Well, the No on 2 party is that salesman. They've tried every tactic except honesty.
"We want a coastal management program. Just not THAT one!"
"We can't have anymore government regulation. But we want a coastal management program, even though we consider it more government regulation."
No on 2... unless you live in Alaska.
@billb
Why do you hate the utilization of natural resources so much, and desire to have mass unemployment, causing death and hardship for the poor souls who will lose their jobs under this new proposal? Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? But your typically liberal hyperbole is all you really have, isn't it?
Oh no! Outsiders!
Haha! This letter indicates that suspicion of "outsiders" means that folks are basically racists/xenophobes/exclusionists.
Not quite, buddy. We are called involved citizens who care about Alaska.
When you move somewhere and raise a family, you think about how your actions affect your place of residence.
While some folks in the oil, gas, mining industry move here and decide to stay, for a great many, moving to Alaska is a temporary necessity.
When you leave your kids and spouse at home in another state (or country) and come to "do a job" and send your paycheck home, your PERSONAL INVESTMENT in your job location is a little different than a person who LIVES there.
How many upper management BP or Shell folks will have descendants living in the arctic in 40 years? How many upper management Pebble folks will have grandchildren or great-grandchildren in Alaska in 40 years? The people making the big bucks are not interested in our state as a place to live.
Get real. I know Prop 2 isn't likely to pass; I know why as well. It has nothing to do with headquarters and everything to do with language. Tying it to Pebble was pretty short-sighted. Having headquarters outside of Alaska doesn't make people evil; it makes them less tied to our Alaskan culture. Period. You think an Outside company's tie to this state is equal to an Alaskan family's? When it comes to Pebble, those folks would be long gone and our great-grandchildren would be cleaning up their mess.
Your company headquarters must be located in "Head-in-the-sand" Land. My priority is Alaskan jobs for a lifetime, not for a few decades.
Perhaps we should dump
Perhaps we should dump everything in Alaska that is provided by "outsiders." You know, all those oil companies, mining companies, fishing companies, car companies, grocery companies, cell phone manufacturers, those folks that build ferries, airplanes, motorcycles, ATVs, snow machines, those pesky fools that deliver gasoline, those darn tourists that make summers in Juneau unbearable, the federal government who provides funds for roads, mail, and other non-essential items. Gosh, if we could just get rid of all those darn outsiders our life would be so grand. The next time you fools get into you car, or onto your bicycle, or purchase something to eat, perhaps you should thank the outsiders that provide them for you. But you won't, you'll keep harping and complaining because it's what you do best.
akjim
With your comment "perhaps you should thank the outsiders that provide them for you." you just bolstered Obama's "you didn't build that" argument........Thanks!
akjim,
what are you mumbling about? Due to Alaskans supporting a tool that wold protect their own interests in their state resources, you think they shouldn't accept any outside services/goods? Really?
What point were you trying to relay here? Was it intentional that you sound incredibly naive? Was the point you were trying to make that you don't fully understand this issue but in the hopes of staying relevant you'd throw in your two cents anyway? If so, consider your point made... loud and clear.
@akjim - it went right over
@akjim - it went right over their heads!!
Liberalism is a mental disorder...
@ JNUKara, I'm not sure what
@ JNUKara, I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously I was being factitious, outside goods are obviously necessary. However it certainly doesn't meet Obama's idiotic remark. We are all interconnected, and the failure to understand that Alaska does not, and cannot, live in a total vacuum is important. We would have very little of our current modernity if it wasn't for huge oil revenues over the last many decades. Surely folks are eager to get their PFD checks? This constant harping of outside influences in resource management is pure idiocy. There have been a myriad of attacks on companies merely because they are from the "outside," and thus their views are entirely unneeded and unnecessary. Taking this to an extreme was my point, to show the fallacy of this argument.
@ cheeesy, your point makes no sense, if you indeed have a point. Clearly your reading comprehension needs some work.
akjim,
reading comprehension is the level of understanding of a text... I summarized your post and you did not object... obviously my comprehension is adequate. As for yours, it appears you are lacking, or you just don't know how to reply to my comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your outrageous remark showed signs of disconnect and misunderstanding. Hardly the characteristics of a strong reading comprehension.
And the fact that calypso is behind you further dismantles any reasonable point you thought you were making.
Alaska's outside investors only invest if Alaska's resources are available. Outside investors have no interest in the future of Alaska's resources, because they have no long-term stake in Alaska's future. When the resources dry up, so do the investors. The only interested party in Alaska's future are Alaskan residents. WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CARE IF SALMON ARE HERE IN 20 YEARS.
Why should we trust our future in the hands of those who won't be here in 20 years? What benefits us more? Controlled resource management based on sustainability or industry self-management? This isn't rocket-science.
factitious????
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
And these 2 statements of yours contradict each other:
"it certainly doesn't meet Obama's idiotic remark."
"We are all interconnected"
Maybe you should go back to school and let the adults figure this out.....
"Factitious disorders are a
"Factitious disorders are a group of mental disturbances in which patients intentionally act physically or mentally ill without obvious benefits. The name factitious comes from a Latin word that means artificial. These disorders are not malingering, which is defined as pretending illness when the "patient" has a clear motive, such as financial gain."
Well, well.... maybe that shoe does fit you after all!
JNUK, I believe he was trying to say facetious. Spelling
was a little off. :)
Thanks
Thanks, justlivin, spelling can certainly cause a lot of errors. Multitasking isn't what it's cracked up to be. Busy Monday. A real shame these small minded fools can't figure that out in the first place, though.
small minded fool is right,
"A real shame these small minded fools can't figure that out in the first place, though."
care to "refudiate" any other claims we "small-minded fools" have made today? Can you sense my "factitiousness"?
What is a real shame, jim, is that you made the comment in the first place. But you keep blaming everyone else for your own shortcomings. It really makes you look mature.
Cheeesy, any fool who
Cheeesy, any fool who couldn't figure out that I was being "factitious" is a pure dolt. It's clear from your post that you are such a dolt. The fact that you keep harping on it is another example. I made it clear that I was mistaken, and blamed no one but myself. That, too, is clear, except, once again, for dolts like yourself. If you'd like, I'll start pointing out every little mistake you make, but I doubt I'd like to spend that much time out of my day.
Alaska Journal of Commerce
Now there's an unbiased organization. Carpetbaggers.
akjim,
"A real shame these small minded fools can't figure that out in the first place, though."
"I made it clear that I was mistaken, and blamed no one but myself."
You blamed "small minded fools," for the record.
"That, too, is clear, except, once again, for dolts like yourself."
And then you proceed to call me a dolt. Now, I don't want to make too much of an assumption here, but did you use the wrong spelling again? And please, carry on "correcting" my many mistakes. One would be a good start...
You should have quit while you were mildly behind...
Hey folks, I have noticed something you all may have missed.
Juneau's regional paper has many 'outside' readers.
Granted, most do not comment. But from time to time I see a select few throw in two cents or more.
What would be nice is the contributors on this forum to remember it is not just 'their' forum.
Really, pick up a phone. (Half of you know each other.)
I am sure glad we can sell
I am sure glad we can sell "our" fish and "our" oil and "our" natural beauty to the "outsiders".
They need to come here for the "natural beauty".
It is still "ours" when they leave. (Does not stop 'them' from trying to change or redefine "ours").