Wednesday, April 29, 2026
Home Blog Page 1087

How the Left exploits tribal hypocrisy on oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

8

By TRISTAN JUSTICE / THE FEDERALIST

President Joe Biden continued to follow through on his campaign pledge to enact leftist environmentalism this month when he suspended oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The decision was cheered by leftist environmental groups as a victory for wildlife and social justice, supposedly protecting indigenous tribes from the alleged devastation of oil and gas drilling hundreds of miles from their homes. Biden Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy celebrated the move as “an important step forward fulfilling President Biden’s promise to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”

The Trump administration had opened the door to drill on the Refuges’ coastal plain, a nearly 1.6 million-acre stretch on Alaska’s north coast. The 1.6 million-acre patch along the north slope is less than 10 percent of the total refuge that stretches 19.6 million acres across northeast Alaska, a total about the size of South Carolina.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that below the surface of the North Slope’s 1.6 million acres temporarily opened for leasing, known as the 1002 Area, lie between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If opened for operations, it could become the most productive oil field in the country at a time gas prices are soaring to seven-year highs under the new administration.

Yet on June 1, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland signed an order to bring leases to a halt, claiming “inadequate study” of the drilling’s impact by the prior administration. “The Secretary shall review the program and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, conduct a new, comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the oil and gas program,” the order reads.

The Gwich’in Tribe, who live south of the massive wildlife refuge, claimed Biden’s decision to reverse course was a win for their “tribal sovereignty” by protecting the primary caribou herd in the region, a key regional food source.

“The Gwich’in Nation is grateful and heartened by the news that the Biden administration has acted again on its commitment to protecting sacred lands and the Gwich’in way of life,” said Gwich’in Steering Committee Executive Director Bernadette Demientieff on the heels of Haaland’s order. “After fighting so hard to protect these lands and the Porcupine caribou herd, trusting the guidance of our ancestors and elders, and the allyship of people around the world, we can now look for further action by the administration and to Congress to repeal the leasing program.”

The Gwich’in have played a prominent role in keeping ANWR free of development, partnering with leftist groups to keep these millions of acres of U.S. land unused indefinitely. Writing in The Hill, Finis Dunaway, a history professor at Trent University and author of “Defending the Arctic Refuge,” summed up the Gwich’in’s more than four-decade crusade to ensure the absence of development on one of the nation’s last known major reserves of oil and natural gas.

The Gwich’in Steering Committee — founded by Gwich’in from Alaska and Canada in 1988 — reframed public perceptions of the refuge, helping grassroots audiences to see the Arctic coastal plain as vital to Indigenous food security and cultural survival. Their leadership and advocacy widened support for protection of the refuge, encouraging religious and faith organizations, humans rights groups and many others to fight for Indigenous rights and environmental justice. These unlikely alliances fostered grassroots involvement that proved critical to the numerous close calls and impossibly narrow victories that followed.

In other words, the Gwich’in have been fundamental to preventing of any sort of development on the nearly 20 million acres of pristine wilderness in the name of “environmental justice” since 1988. 

Yet only four years earlier, that the same tribe, which in fact lives outside the refuge, tried to lease their own lands within the habitat of the Porcupine caribou for oil exploration.

Read the rest of this column at The Federalist.

Anchorage Assembly expands zones for homeless shelters to midtown, will force licensing for shelter operators

16

The Anchorage Assembly on Tuesday passed ordinances opposed by residents across the city and also objected to by operators of homeless shelters and facilities.

The first ordinance expands the zoning for homeless shelters into areas called B-3 business districts. Most of the B-3 areas are in Midtown Anchorage. Assemblywoman Meg Zaletel of Midtown was the sponsor of the ordinance that will bring more crime and social problems to Midtown neighborhoods.

Zaletel is the subject of a recall effort that is now underway.

The B-3 district in Anchorage “is intended for primarily for general commercial uses in commercial centers and area exposed to heavy traffic. These commercial uses are intended to be located on arterials, or within commercial centers of town, and to be provided with adequate public services and facilities,” according to the Municipality, but the zone butts up against residential neighborhoods. The purpose of the ordinance is to spread out the homeless problem to reduce its impacts on the downtown district and make other neighborhoods share the burden.

The second ordinance is going to require homeless shelters to be licensed by the municipality by 2023. This ordinance was objected to by faith-based organizations who say that the Assembly, run by a leftist majority, is trying to force women’s shelters to admit transgendered individuals.

Read: Targeting faith-based organizations, Assembly seeks to license shelters

Only Chugiak/Eagle River Assemblywomen Jamie Allard and Crystal Kennedy voted against the ordinances, which passed 8-2.

Kevin McCabe: What went wrong? The ineffective budget and PFD trick bumps up against the Alaska Constitution

By REP. KEVIN MCCABE

It’s time Alaska’s government was honest with its people. It’s time we started following our laws.

Symbolic of our problem is the “do as I say, not as I do” mentality ingrained in Juneau and found in the recent essay from an Anchorage senator from the one of Alaska’s wealthiest districts.

The operating budget, which keeps Alaska’s government open for business, failed to pass the Legislature with enough support to make it effective in time for the new fiscal year. It is, in fact, a defective budget. The Alaska Constitution (Article 2, sec. 18) is very clear on this point: Unless a supermajority in both the House and Senate agree on a different date, all bills go into effect 90 days after enactment.

This operating budget failed to garner the two-thirds votes necessary to shorten that effective date. There is no legal or constitutional workaround, as has been done with prorated per diem, lowering the annual Permanent Fund dividend amount, or blowing through a 90-day voter-imposed session time limit. The Constitution has these rules for a reason. The government will not have funds on July 1 unless legislators negotiate in good faith to reach a real compromise.

A beginning of the solution would be asking critics like the good senator, and others who share her perspective, to spend a little less time accusing Alaskans of “greed and entitlement,” and asking those of us who voted “nay” what our motivations were.

I’m willing to sit down and talk to any one of my colleagues, despite what our critics are attempting to portray. My vote belongs to the constituents of my district.

I represent one of the most conservative House districts in the state. My neighbors overwhelmingly support following the Permanent Fund dividend law. In fact, they strongly believe they are rightfully owed the PFD money first taken during Gov. Bill Walker’s tenure and then by the Legislature during ensuring years. Further, they believe the PFD should be paid first, not last. This budget did not reflect any of my district’s values.

In fact, this bully budget was fundamentally coercive and directly used Mat-Su Borough children and elderly as political pawns. Members of the respective majorities employed budgetary parlor games such as pitting the amount of the PFD against capital projects such as the Houston Middle School (condemned from the 2018 earthquake), the Palmer Veteran’s Home, highways, infrastructure, and resource development against the fastest growing and second most populous area of the state. These tactics are non-starters and embarrassingly transparent.

Not held hostage in the budget were a swimming pool and a road to nowhere in Sitka benefitting the co-chair of Senate Finance (who is a member of the budget Conference Committee), and road construction in Fairbanks. These and other items were not used to leverage votes of other legislators; yet those legislators have no problem lecturing the House Minority members about the need to vote for this budget and “do the right thing.” Real compromise is a two-way street.

Worse yet, making these changes to the budget, in the 11th hour, behind closed doors, and with no consideration to me or my House Republican colleagues, fails to build the trust we need in order to work for every Alaskan. Our hand was forced. We were obligated to demand a budget that more accurately reflects the values and needs of all Alaskans.

I have never minced words. I would not support this budget, including the effective date, without compromises that reflect the needs and priorities of all regions.

To suggest anything else is an attempt to gaslight the public; to keep them from recognizing the fundamental failure of House and Senate leadership to pass a legal and timely budget.

The effective date clause, the CBR vote and reverse sweep are the only levers available to the minority caucus members of the House to use that ensure the voices of the nearly 325,000 Alaskans they represent are heard. Last Tuesday’s vote in the State House is a glaring failure to recognize that necessity.

There is still time to come together for and fix this, but the minority must have the concerns of its constituents heard. Less vitriol, fewer accusations of citizens being greedy by asking that existing statute be followed, and less budgetary skullduggery, will solve this impasse before July 1. The House Republican Caucus is still at the table, and we are ready to work. The question is, are those in critical positions ready to come to the table and find real compromises instead of expecting capitulation?

Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Wasilla, represents District 8 in the Alaska State House.

Controversial Park Service supervisor promoted to Mount Rainier park post

14

The National Park Service has promoted Greg Dudgeon to become the next superintendent of Mount Rainier National Park.

Dudgeon is the acting deputy regional director in Alaska, where he oversees the management of 15 national parks, preserves, monuments, and national historical parks.

His history in Alaska includes a controversial assault by his direct report Park Service employees against Fairbanks moose hunter Jim Wilde, and the interference with the legal activities of moose hunter John Sturgeon, who took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he won 9-0 against the Park Service.

Dudgeon was the supervisor of the rookie rangers who were in the Yukon-Charley Preserve for the summer, having been relocated from out of state. Both the Wilde case and the Sturgeon case rubbed Alaskans the wrong way, due to the heavy-handed use of federal force to stop Alaskans from being able to legally hunt.

“As a 30-year National Park Service veteran, Greg has extensive experience caring for historic and cultural resources in parks and managing them in balance with natural resource conservation and public use,” said Acting NPS Regional Director Cindy Orlando in a news release. “Greg’s ability to work collaboratively with partners and communities to protect park resources make him a great fit for this position.”

That’s not how his critics describe him, however.

Dudgeon started his career with the National Park Service as a volunteer in 1983, when he was assigned to assist a whale biologist at Glacier Bay National Park. He worked his way up the ladder as a seasonal biological technician, an interpretive ranger and a commissioned ranger. Dudgeon was the chief ranger for the Bering Land National Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Kobuk Valley National Park and Noatak National Preserve. 

He was the superintendent of Hovenweep and Natural Bridges national monuments from 2001 to 2003 and later returned to Alaska as the superintendent of Sitka National Historical Park, according to the Park Service release.

He became the superintendent of Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, and Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve in 2007, where he served until he took on his current role of acting deputy regional director. 

It was during this time that the two most controversial cases took place. In the Wilde case, park rangers threw the then-70-year-old Wilde, a World War II veteran, into the mud and held his wife at gunpoint. As written by writer Craig Medred, who covered the trial for the Alaska Dispatch:

“The National Park Service ended up on trial here Wednesday in what was supposed to be a case against a 70-year-old resident of Central, Alaska, who led a short, but action-packed, high-speed riverboat chase along the Yukon River in September.

“From the day that encounter in the remote wilds of Alaska first erupted into a national incident — the state and the federal government are still in court arguing over who has authority for a river through the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve long used for both Alaska and Canadian commerce — Jim Wilde, the man accused by the Park Service of fleeing and endangering rangers, has protested that all he ever wanted to do was take his boat to the safety of a riverbank before meeting with the government men who wanted to do a “safety inspection.”

“Before doing this, however, two rangers have testified Wilde said, ‘You fucking cocksuckers. I’m not stopping.’ He gunned his boat and headed upriver,” Medred wrote.

As for Wilde, he said since his boat was loaded heavily he would have been at risk for tipping if he had followed the park rangers’ instructions to halt and cut his motors in a fast-moving part of the river. Bill Satterberg was the attorney who represented Wilde.

In the trial, it became known that one of the rangers had on a previous occasion handcuffed an Alaskan for not giving his name to a federal official, and that the Park Service had overstepped by actually going into Canada several miles to detain the man in the handcuffing incident.

In the Sturgeon case, the Park Service, again under Dudgeon, ordered the moose hunter to stop his hovercraft boat, which he had used on the Nations River in the Yukon-Charley National Preserve. That case ended up at the Supreme Court, which agreed that the State of Alaska has jurisdiction over navigable waters.

Read: Sturgeon wins 9-0 at Supreme Court

Hunters and sportsmen in Fairbanks who were reached by Must Read Alaska said they were glad to see Dudgeon go, that his history of federal overreach in Alaska was less than appreciated by them. They said they felt they were treated as second-class citizens by Dudgeon, who showed little regard for the Alaska way of life, and they wish the communities around Mount Rainier well as he takes over the large national park near Seattle.

Speaker Stutes upset that governor asked for legal opinion on constitutional provision on budget’s effective date

BUDGET HAS NOT EVEN BEEN TRANSMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR, BUT SPEAKER IS COMPLAINING

House Speaker Louise Stutes is upset that Gov. Mike Dunleavy has asked the Alaska Superior Court to weigh in on whether he can ignore the state Operating Budget’s effective date.

In a press statement on Tuesday, Stutes said the governor was unnecessarily risking a government shutdown. “Speaker calls on Governor Dunleavy to stop pushing Alaska closer to a shutdown,” is the headline on Stutes’ statement.

Dunleavy’s Attorney General on Monday asked the Superior Court to settle the question about whether Dunleavy can simply ignore the effective date clause in the budget and simply start spending money. Attorney General Treg Taylor said it’s his job to defend the constitution, and this appears to be a constitutional dispute between branches of government. After Dunleavy sought advice from Chief Justice Bolger, and was denied, AG Taylor filed a complaint with Superior Court to get the ball rolling.

The situation surrounds a constitutional technicality that says the budget goes into effect 90 days after it is signed, unless the Legislature passes a revised “effective date clause,” which would be needed in order to avoid a partial government shutdown.

The House did not pass that clause, because House Republicans were dissatisfied that the Permanent Fund dividend had once again been treated as a “what’s leftover, and as little as we can get away with” appropriation, rather than what Alaskans know they are entitled to through statute, which is about $3,500 this year.

Stutes’ statement is also an indication that the House Democrat leadership misjudged the situation, because now that the matter is before the courts, the Democrats’ plan to blame the governor for a shutdown becomes more problematic. The House had put forward a Permanent Fund dividend of zero, and then bargained it up to $1,100 through conference committee with the Senate.

Also problematic is the fact that the Legislature has not yet even transmitted the budget to the governor, yet the House Speaker is blaming the governor for risking a shutdown.

Legislative Affairs Agency has advised the Legislature that the government can continue operating on July 1, but the Governor’s Office is taking a more originalist approach to the Alaska Constitution, referring to what the framers intended when they put in the 90-day clause, rather than recent legal writings that propose looser interpretations.

The governor called the Legislature back into a second special session that starts on Wednesday, when the Legislature can remedy the situation by taking the existing budget, which is largely agreed to by both sides, and putting it inside a bill that has not yet passed — the forward funding for education bill, for example (HB 169), that is in House Finance. If the House majority treats the minority with consideration and includes a Permanent Fund dividend that most Republicans can stomach voting for, the House could transmit that bill to the Senate this week and they could all go home.

Alternately, Dunleavy has said he will present the Legislature with a new budget when they gather. His will likely include what’s known as the “50-50 PFD,” which is the amount that would be calculated under SJR 6, his bill to put the entire PFD calculation into the Alaska Constitution through a vote of the people — up or down.

“The fact that the governor is reaching out to the chief justice of the Supreme Court on a pending legal matter is inappropriate and troubling. Alaska just got through one of the toughest years in our history, and the governor should stop using our limited time and money on a lawsuit that will drive us one step closer to a state-imposed shutdown,” Stutes said.

On social media, however, the constituents of far-left members of her majority are not amused. Heavy criticism is being lobbed at Rep. Zack Fields and others for wasting 153 days so far this year and not producing a budget.

The public, which has been shut from the Alaska Capitol for well over a year, is using Facebook to tell lawmakers what is on their minds, and the Democrats are being wrecked by their constituents.

“Perhaps he’s [Dunleavy] pushing for the full PFD disbursement for Alaska’s citizens,” wrote one citizen to Fields about the Dunleavy PFD plan. “Perhaps less of the CBR should go to run state government (as designed – it’s not a bailout for fiscal irresponsibility!) 40% has NOT been cut in the last 6 years = shell game. Be honest and maybe people wouldn’t be so touchy about the subject.”

“It is reprehensible that you are trying to steal the pfd from every man, woman and child including disabled, homeless, senior citizen, victims of abuse and people with terminal illness, all to pay for your ‘programs’ that fail to help the people. There’s words for that and ‘politician’ is no excuse,” wrote another to Fields.

“Grow Up Rep. Fields, get your job done. Quit laying it off on others,” commented another, in a series of remarks that reflected the sentiment against Fields, in his attempt to shift blame to the governor.

Fields has had a tough public relations year, after having been part of a beer-and-leg-wrestling party after hours in the Capitol complex, and has been criticized for his cozy relationships with Republican turncoat Rep. Kelly Merrick and Rep. Sara Rasmussen. His past behavior puts him on shaky ground for criticizing the governor, when his own caucus has not been able to produce a legal budget.

Read Beer, pong, leg-wrestling, and the workings of government on the ‘floor’

Murkowski honored by travel industry for her work on tourism leg of ‘three-legged stool’ economy

11

The American Society of Travel Advisors presented U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski with the 2021 Global Travel Advocate Award for her efforts to support the travel and tourism industry, as well as her efforts to keep travel agencies and businesses open through a number of provisions in multiple COVID-19 relief packages. ASTA is a trade association for travel agents whose Executive Vice President for Advocacy Eban Peck, pictured above, made the award.

On May 24, 2021, the President signed into law the Alaska Tourism Restoration Act, led by Sen. Murkowski, Sen. Dan Sullivan, and Congressman Don Young, providing regulatory breaks for Alaska’s struggling cruise tourism industry. Cruises to Alaska are set to start in July, as a result, although smaller cruise ships have been visiting the state for over a month.

“Senator Murkowski’s efforts in support of the travel agency sector and the travel industry as a whole since COVID-19 hit have been a ray of light for our members during the most challenging time of their professional lives. From supporting inclusion of travel agencies in the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant program to superhuman efforts to salvage a portion of the 2021 Alaska cruise season to advocating for tax incentives to speed the return of business and leisure travel, her work has helped travel agencies in Alaska and beyond survive this crisis. On behalf of the 375 Alaskans who work at travel agencies in the state and travel advisors everywhere, we are honored to present Senator Murkowski the 2021 ASTA Global Travel Advocate award,” said Zane Kerby, President and CEO of ASTA.

ASTA has 13 member accounts listed in Alaska, 10 of which belong to Visit Anchorage and the Alaska Railroad Corporation.

“Alaska’s economy is a three legged stool, with one of those being our tourism industry. So to say that travel and tourism is important to Alaska’s economy is an understatement.  During the coronavirus pandemic, travel and tourism came to a big halt across much of the U.S., but for a state where so many of our communities rely on tourism for their economies, Alaska was among the states most severely impacted,” said Murkowski. “From the Alaska Tourism Restoration Act to the COVID relief packages, I’ve prioritized efforts to help bring tourism back and keep Alaskans afloat through the hardships created by the pandemic. I appreciate this recognition and I am thankful for all the Alaskans who have worked with me in these endeavors.”

Unfriendly skies: The airlines’ war on passengers is reaching breaking point

Even during the pandemic lockdowns of 2020, I traveled on commercial airlines extensively. With family stretched from Alaska to Mexico and Florida, and looking after aging parents and my own appointments, I’m on planes at least once a month.

The commercial flight experience has become pretty rough this year.

There were times last year when I could have used the C concourse of SeaTac International Airport for a bowling alley, it was so empty. Same in Atlanta. At this time last year, I flew on a Boeing 737-800 that had just 10 passengers.

In April of 2020, masks were not mandatory, but a few passengers were wearing them, or pulling up gaiters or scarves over their faces. I was among the early mask-wearers, starting in March of 2020, because there was a lot we all did not know about the Covid-19 virus. I also brought hand sanitizer on board and wiped down my tray and armrests with disinfectant.

By summer, airlines were mandating masks, and when Joe Biden became president, they became law through his executive order. That’s when things started to deteriorate.

Months later, flight attendants are militant, but not only about enforcing federal law concerning face coverings. They have become generally surly with passengers. Whatever sense of hospitality they may have had has disappeared. For their Gold members, Alaska Airlines flight attendants all but throw chocolate bar awards at them with nary a “thank you,” these days.

Recently on a red-eye, I was fortunate enough to be upgraded to first class on Alaska Airlines out of Seattle. There is no service expected on a red-eye, as everyone wants to sleep. Upon initial descent, the flight attendant shook me harshly on my shoulder and ordered me to raise my seat back. It was nearly a punch. Rough handling was unnecessary since I never lowered it in the first place. Awakened rudely with a jolt, I felt a bit manhandled.

That’s when I realized why some people have reacted so poorly to flight attendants: Some travelers are stressed about flying or about wearing masks for hours on end, without food or water. Some are experiencing terrible hardships in their lives and are heading toward difficult situations, such as death, divorce, or other family tragedy. Not everyone flying is feeling like the Chiquita Banana woman when they fly hither and yon.

Mind you, I’d kept my mask on, as I always do onboard, and had been sleeping since before the wheels left the runway. There was no cause for physically rough treatment.

This is not a solitary experience. On nearly every flight in recent months, I’ve witnessed other passenger being treated like inmates, rather than paying customers. Although I have not seen unruly passengers, I read about them or hear of them in the media, and the instances of disputes between flight attendants and passengers are apparently on the rise.

These days, the onboard announcements make it very clear that there is federal law involved and the attendants are there primarily to enforce the law, that masks must be replaced between bites and sips, or else. The announcements are more like warnings, and they set passengers on edge.

Travelers with two-year-olds who are tired, cranky, refusing their masks are being removed from flights and are left stranded in airports by airlines. Others who are simply trying to get some air into their lungs are banned from airlines for leaving their mask off at the wrong time. Over 4,000 passengers have now been banned from commercial airlines for not complying with the mask mandate.

Under the new Biden law, it has become a war on passengers. People feel they are walking on eggshells from the moment they step into the plane.

Rather than addressing the reason passengers are disgruntled over airlines’ poor treatment of them, airlines are now going to the federal government for even more powers of enforcement.

Evidently it’s not enough to have the Transportation Security Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration involved with mask enforcement and removal of disruptive passengers. It’s not enough that there are approximately 3,000 U.S. Marshals flying around the country incognito on various routes to keep us safe from terrorists.

Now, the airlines have asked the U.S. Justice Department to also take action against misbehaving passengers through criminal charges. This will no doubt lead to even more ominous warnings over the jet’s address system: “You may be criminally charged by the Department of Justice for not wearing your mask.”

Read: Airlines ask Justice Department to criminally charge passengers without masks

The airlines already have thin credibility when it comes to passenger safety and comfort. Until recently, the airlines were allowing dogs, cats, and other pets of every size and habit to fly with their handlers as “comfort animals.” This, despite the fact that many passengers are allergic or phobic about certain animals.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information says allergies to dogs and cats affect 10%–20% of the population, and yet airlines were exposing an average of 15% of their passengers to known health risks on every single flight. To object to sitting next to a pet meant being relocated to an aft seat or being asked to take another flight. The comfort of pets were more important than the health of passengers.

Today, airline employees behave as though they are in the prison business, treating every customer like a criminal. And the passengers have clearly started to fray at the edges.

I’ve held off writing about this topic for some time, hoping things would improve. As a pro-business writer, it’s not my way to take private businesses to task unless something is truly egregious.

But the standoff between airline employees and passengers is increasing the sense that both sides now view each other as the enemy, and this cannot end well.

Airlines need to own their lapse in training and address the behavior of their workforce as it interacts with customers. They should do it now, because it will be a long summer for passengers and crew if they don’t.

Alexander Dolitsky: You’ll find narrow-minded people anywhere, but America is not an anti-Semitic country

By ALEXANDER DOLITSKY

As a little Jewish boy in Kiev, Ukraine in the 1950s and 1960s, I often questioned myself for the reasons of the anti-Jewish attitude by many of my countryman—young or old, educated or ignorant. My parents could not give me an adequate answer either. “It is what it is,” my mother kept repeating to me. “Stay in your circle, because sooner or later ‘they’[outsiders] will betray you and call you ‘zhid’— a ‘dirty Jew.’”

My mother’s fear for the safety of her children, as well as many other Jewish mothers in the post-WWII Ukraine, was perfectly justified. Her father (my grandfather), Roman Umansky, was captured by German Nazis and brutally killed in Nazi-occupied Kiev in 1941. He was betrayed by the Ukrainian woman who worked for him in his barber shop before the war erupted; she called the German SS on him for the reward of a small ration of food. 

Residents of Kiev also were well aware that nearly 34,000 Jews were massacred on Sept. 29-30, 1941 by the German SS in Babiy Yar—a ravine in Kiev, about a 5-minute walk from the K–11 Secondary School where my mother taught K–4 students.  This was also a school that I attended for 4 years in the early 1960s. It is estimated that between 100,000 and 150,000 people, mostly Jews, were killed at Babi Yar during the German occupation of Kiev from September 1941 until its liberation in November of 1943.

Anti-Semitism is a hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.  The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe during the unification of Germany at that time.

On May 26, 2016, the 31-member countries of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted the practical, legally non-binding definition of anti-Semitism: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews that can be expressed as hatred of Jews. The physical and rhetorical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed at Jewish or non-Jewish persons and/or their property, the institutions of the Jewish communities and their places of worship.”

In short, anti-Semitism is the belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. For instance, it may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them physically or psychologically. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews—their cultural traditions, appearance, language, physical characteristics, etc.

Nevertheless, an institutional or dictionary definition of anti-Semitism does not adequately reflect or explain the feelings of those Jews who have experienced and been subjected to daily anti-Semitic mistreatment, discrimination and prejudice by the society at large and radical groups of people with whom they have been coexisting.

Certainly, I can conceptualize what ethnic minorities, including Black Americans, experience by socio-economic pressure of the dominant culture, but  I will never know for certain how Black Americans feel when they are stopped by law enforcement authorities; as non-Jews, most likely, will never know how Jews feel in the anti-Semitic social environment or being subjected to anti-Semitic attacks and mistreatment.

Historically, anti-Semitism in Russia has been manifested in numerous ways: direct attacks at Jewish settlements (pogroms), denial of employment and admission to schools of high education, denial of residency in large cities before 1917 pre-revolutionary Russia, hatred by certain radical groups or ignorant individuals, fear for Jewish identity, and the list goes on. 

Indeed, Jewish mothers in the post-WWII period in the former Soviet Union, witnessing a Holocaust and extermination of Jews during the war, were especially protective of their sons; often deciding against circumcising them (religious Jewish practice/ritual for newborn boys) in order to hide their Jewish identity—just in case the tragic history of Holocaust may repeat itself.

After eruption of the October Socialist Revolution of 1917 in Russia, religion of all denominations was proclaimed an “enemy of the people and opium of the masses.” Most churches and religious institutions were abolished and theological teaching in schools was banned through the entire country. 

Instead, Marxist-Leninist teaching/propaganda became an ideological foundation of the country with “Scientific Atheism” and “Scientific Communism” as required disciplines to be instructed in all educational institutions of the former Soviet Union. Practicing Judaism (religion of Jewish people) was subjected to harsh punishment by the Soviet government and the word God should not be mentioned at all or only with a great caution in private.

Occasionally, for the High Jewish Holidays, my nuclear family would gather in my grandfather Aron Dolitsky’s (my father’s father) house for a traditional celebration. He lived in the rusty communal house on Vorovskiy Street in a small two-room apartment, together with five members of his immediate family, sharing kitchen and bathroom on the same floor with a non-Jewish family.

Despite these inconveniences, five distinct attributes were always present in this tiny apartment: faith, peace, love, delicious food and non-stop musical rehearsals by my cousins—Vova and Mila. When grandpa’s voice would rise a little high during his prayer, my grandma Pulya would gently touch his arm and caution him, “Aron, not so loud, our neighbors can hear you.”

One time, after the prayer, I approached my grandpa and asked him sheepishly, “Grandpa, tell me, is He there?” Grandpa nodded sympathetically then hesitated a moment, “For those who believe in Him, He is; and for those who do not, He is not,” he answered with a slightly put-upon sigh.

The main reason that so many Soviet Jews immigrated to the United States from the 1970s through 1980s was to escape anti-Semitism in the former Soviet Union and have an ability to exercise their religious freedom and practice their cultural traditions in America. Unfortunately, there are anti-Semites in America, too—they are ignorant and narrow-minded people. But today America is not an anti-Semitic or racist country. Period!

Nevertheless, today in our country, after all historic struggles of Jewish people, I, and many other Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union, are subjected to “white privilege” and “critical race theory” nonsense.

So, progressive left advocates for social change and justice in our country, how do you think I feel when I am called “white-privilege oppressor” of ethnic minorities in America? Given my ancestry, past experiences, and struggles, try to put yourself in my shoes.

Alexander B. Dolitsky was born and raised in Kiev in the former Soviet Union. He received an M.A. in history from Kiev Pedagogical Institute, Ukraine, in 1977; an M.A. in anthropology and archaeology from Brown University in 1983; and was enroled in the Ph.D. program in Anthropology at Bryn Mawr College from 1983 to 1985, where he was also a lecturer in the Russian Center. In the U.S.S.R., he was a social studies teacher for three years, and an archaeologist for five years for the Ukranian Academy of Sciences. In 1978, he settled in the United States. Dolitsky visited Alaska for the first time in 1981, while conducting field research for graduate school at Brown. He lived first in Sitka in 1985 and then settled in Juneau in 1986. From 1985 to 1987, he was a U.S. Forest Service archaeologist and social scientist. He was an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Alaska Southeast from 1985 to 1999; Social Studies Instructor at the Alyeska Central School, Alaska Department of Education from 1988 to 2006; and has been the Director of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center (see www.aksrc.homestead.com) from 1990 to present. He has conducted about 30 field studies in various areas of the former Soviet Union (including Siberia), Central Asia, South America, Eastern Europe and the United States (including Alaska). Dolitsky has been a lecturer on the World Discoverer, Spirit of Oceanus, andClipper Odyssey vessels in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. He was the Project Manager for the WWII Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease Memorial, which was erected in Fairbanks in 2006. He has published extensively in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology, and ethnography. His more recent publications include Fairy Tales and Myths of the Bering Strait Chukchi, Ancient Tales of Kamchatka; Tales and Legends of the Yupik Eskimos of Siberia; Old Russia in Modern America: Russian Old Believers in Alaska; Allies in Wartime: The Alaska-Siberia Airway During WWII; Spirit of the Siberian Tiger: Folktales of the Russian Far East; Living Wisdom of the Far North: Tales and Legends from Chukotka and Alaska; Pipeline to Russia; The Alaska-Siberia Air Route in WWII; and Old Russia in Modern America: Living Traditions of the Russian Old Believers; Ancient Tales of Chukotka, and Ancient Tales of Kamchatka.

Read: Old believers preserving faith in the New World

Read: Duke Ellington and the effects of Cold War in Soviet Union on intellectual curiosity

Read: My first days in America as a Soviet immigrant

Judicial Council seeks new judge applicants

4

Judge applicants are being sought for the Juneau, Utqiagvik, and Anchorage Superior Courts for vacancies expected to occur with the upcoming retirements of Juneau Superior Court Judge Philip M. Pallenberg, and Utqiagvik Superior Court Judge Nelson Traverso.

A Superior Court vacancy is impending in Anchorage due to the expected appointment of one of three Anchorage Superior Court judges nominated for the Alaska Supreme Court.

Interested persons may obtain an application form by calling the Alaska Judicial Council or online at the Council’s website (www.ajc.state.ak.us).

Alaska judges must conform their conduct to the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct and the laws of Alaska and the United States, the council wrote in its announcement. They must be familiar with Alaska law, procedure, and trial practice. A Superior Court judge must be a citizen of the United States and of the state of Alaska, a resident of Alaska for five years immediately preceding appointment, engaged in the active practice of law for not less than five years immediately preceding appointment, and at the time of appointment be licensed to practice law in Alaska.

Applications are reviewed by the Alaska Judicial Council, a seven-member citizens’ commission with three Alaska Bar Association attorneys, three non-attorneys, and the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court, who serves as Chair, ex officio.

The Council votes on which applicants are the most qualified based upon consideration of the applicant’s professional competence, integrity, fairness, temperament, judgment, legal and life experience, demonstrated commitment to public and community service, and demonstrated commitment to equal justice and the legal needs of the diverse communities of Alaska. The governor then has 45 days in which to appoint judges from the Council’s lists of nominees.