Monthly Archives: August 2009

Why I’m going to the big gay march on Washington

Posted on by

By Beth Sherouse
Columbia, SC

Since movement veteran Cleve Jones announced plans for a national gay rights march on Washington following the passage of California’s Prop. 8 last November, reactions from the LGBT community have been mixed. Supporters of October’s National Equality March are adopting a grassroots lobbying strategy, demanding “Equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states,” and promoting a more direct appeal to the federal government for LGBT rights. Lukewarm supporters and skeptics of the march, mainly organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and state Equality groups, are concerned that the march will drain resources from the state-by-state approach for marriage equality. Critics of the march movement are also concerned that this march may share the fate of previous gay rights marches in ’79, ’87, ’93, and 2000, which seem to have accomplished little.

I have been a supporter of HRC for most of my adult life, and I have worked with both state, local, and campus organizations in South Carolina and Georgia. While I will continue to support such organizations, I think a national approach offers more hope for me and other South Carolinians than anything HRC or state-by-state marriage equality can offer.

South Carolina is one of only five states that has no hate crimes laws; other than a limited policy in the city of Columbia, there are no laws banning discrimination in employment or housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity; and the 2006 constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage in SC passed by 78%. For people who do not live in California or Massachusetts, for those who are part of otherwise disadvantaged communities, for those who live in constant fear of employment discrimination and physical violence because their states give them no protection, for those whose lives and relationships are invisible to most of America, marriage equality in progressive states is nothing more than a symbolic victory, and symbols cannot help them provide for their families or protect themselves from discrimination.

I do not plan to spend the rest of my life in SC. But for those LGBT folks who call South Carolina home, gay marriage fights in states like Maine and California offer little more than momentary comfort against communities in which they will remain second-class citizens for the foreseeable future unless the federal government intervenes. The state-by-state approach to equality seems meaningless in a state that has historically been several decades behind the rest of the country in terms of civil rights. If the federal government had left the battle for desegregation up to states to fight on their own, de jure segregation would arguably still be in place here in SC and a few of its neighboring deep South states.

We need to build support behind a federal gay rights agenda, because if we leave our rights up to the conservative majorities in states across the nation, we will never achieve equality. LGBT Americans should ALL enjoy the same civil rights as their heterosexual counterparts, whether they live in San Francisco or Atlanta, New York or Charleston. The federal government must step in and defend our civil rights in places where our community cannot adequately defend itself, and we must show Washington lawmakers that we are looking to them to change laws as we go about the work of changing hearts and minds.

So this is why we march on Washington on Oct. 10-11. We march because at no time in our nations’ history have gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people been more visible and political. We march because marriage is but one of the many rights and privileges that we deserve as citizens of this country, and because it is time for the Obama administration to make good on its promises to the LGBT community. We march because as Americans, our civil rights should not depend on our sexual orientation or gender identity, nor should they depend on what state we live in. We march because visibility matters and is the key to dismantling the foundations of prejudice and discrimination. And we march with the hope that standing in solidarity with each other and asserting our place in this nation has transformative potential.

NOW launches blog on Women’s Equality Day

Posted on by

The National Organization for Women is celebrating Women’s Equality Day this year by launching Say It, Sister! — a new blog designed to inform, inspire and instigate feminist activism.

Women’s Equality Day marks the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guaranteed women the right to vote. For more than 70 years, the foremothers of feminism campaigned for women’s equality at the polls, and they finally achieved victory in 1920.

Nearly a century later, the ballot box remains vital to protecting and advancing women’s rights, but the way we educate voters and petition our government has changed dramatically. The Internet has brought us unprecedented organizing power, and there’s little doubt that suffragists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Sojourner Truth would have welcomed this tremendous opportunity to amplify their voices and reach out to women across the country and around the globe.

In the tradition of those great feminists, Say It, Sister! will bring women’s rights supporters together to motivate and strengthen each other in our mission to end all forms of sex discrimination. The blog will serve as a place where NOW leaders speak their minds, call women and men to action, encourage feedback and facilitate a lively dialogue.

“I am thrilled to launch NOW’s blog, Say It, Sister!, on Women’s Equality Day,” said NOW Action Vice President Erin Matson. “As Elizabeth Cady Stanton said so long ago, there are many hungry people out there. Well, now we have this incredible power to nourish them and point them in the right direction to make change, and that’s just what we plan to do!”

To the Tea Party People

Posted on by

You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed energy company officials to dictate energy policy resulting in suffering and death in western states.

You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn’t get mad when we spent over $600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars simply „disappeared‰ in Iraq.

You didn’t get mad when you saw the Abu Ghraib photos.

You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people & children.

You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wire tapping Americans.

You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden.

You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city drown.

You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark during the
Bush years after he inherited a surplus from Clinton.

You finally got mad when.. when… (wait for it… ) when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans…

That about right?

Now Hear This: the Fair Elections Now Act

Posted on by

The House Administration Committee held a hearing on July 30 on the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826), at which members heard testimony on the bill and how similarly modeled programs have worked in the states.

Each member of the committee was given the chance to make introductory remarks before proceeding. Although there was some disagreement, all of the members agreed on one thing: their disdain for political fundraising. “I’m going to put it on the record, I hate raising money for campaigns. The only two people I know who enjoyed it, both went to prison,” said Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-Calif.).

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) echoed this sentiment in his testimony:

“I actually think this concept [public financing] is exactly what we need. I hate raising money. I hate it. I hate the fact that the general public thinks that every time I raise a dollar, I’m being bought. I hate it. It’s bad not just for me. It’s bad for the system, it’s bad for people’s perception of government.…I would really much rather be reading a healthcare bill and having that debate, which is fine, or any number of things than ever picking up the phone to anybody to beg them, not for a hundred bucks but for thousands of dollars.”

The committee heard testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first panel included the bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), and original co-sponsors Reps. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.). Speaking first, Rep. Larson said:

“Unfortunately there is, and will remain, the perception that contributions mean influence. This perception is incredibly harmful to Congress as an institution. It erodes the faith and trust of the American people in their government—a critical part of our democracy. We must change this system.“

Rep. Jones followed with some powerful remarks:

“I walked into this room today thinking this was the most important testimony that I could be part of because the system is broken, the system needs to be fixed. Mr. Larson has presented a bill that will work us towards a fix of this problem…[L]et’s return Congress to where they vote based on their conscience not on the influence or perceived influence of money that buys the conscience. Let’s return it back to the people.”

The second panel was comprised of witnesses representing both sides of the debate. Those speaking in favor of the bill were Maine state Speaker of the House of Representatives (and daughter of Rep. Pingree) Hannah Pingree (D); Jeffrey Garfield, executive director & general counsel of the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission; and Arn Pearson, vice president for Programs at Common Cause. Testifying in opposition were Brad Smith, professor of Law at Capital University School of Law and chairman and co-founder of the Center for Competitive Politics; and John Samples, director for the Center for Representative Government at the right-leaning CATO Institute.

Pearson, who closed out the hearing with his testimony, left the members of the committee with a poignant question.

“I doubt this is what you had in mind when you decided to run for Congress. Surely the American people did not send Mr. Smith to Washington to spend his time raising money. They expect and deserve more, and so do you. If you could start from scratch, would this be the system you would choose?”

The hearing was a huge success. Members of the committee were engaged and the committee room was standing room only. During the August recess we will continue to ask lawmakers to co-sponsor the bill through phone calls, e-alerts, letters to the editor, and participating in town hall meetings. Be on the lookout for future calls to action and don’t forget to ask your member to support the Fair Elections Now Act!

Network still fighting privatization of SC ETV broadband

Posted on by

 

Sascha  Meinrath, Director of New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, speaks at a press conference before the hearing.

A three-hour meeting of a legislative subcommittee Aug. 5 gave opponents of privatizing SC ETV’s broadband spectrum their first opportunity to challenge the contract that privatizes the system. The SC Progressive Network presented testimony that the state should retain control of 25% of the spectrum for public use. This “mid band” portion of the spectrum would allow robust wireless Internet statewide.

The contract now under consideration could result in the public losing control of the nation’s only unified, statewide broadband system.

The subcommittee decided that further study of the contract terms were necessary.

The proposed contact leases the statewide educational broadband system to Clearwire and Digital Bridge for 30 years.

Sen. Harvey Peeler and Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, who represent rural counties, were concerned that the contract doesn’t require the companies to provide service in rural and under-served areas.

Sascha Meinrath, Director of New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, testified and responded to questions regarding the practicality of adopting the system for public access. Meinrath’s participation provided the Network with the necessary technical side of issue. Meinrath’s comments on the historical under-valuation of public airwaves was of particular interest to the subcommittee.

Sen. Glen McConnell, chair of the subcommittee, gave all interested parties until Aug. 14 to submit additional information on:

* The value of public retention of 25% of the spectrum. What will it cost to set up and maintain public access WiMax systems and how will it be paid for (by off setting cost of public entities leasing service, etc.). We have to show that giving up $35 million in lease revenue over the 30 years of the lease is a good deal for the state and taxpayers. Can we show that the value of the licensed spectrum will increase?

* The contract calls for the vendors to provide three free, regular subscription broadband services in each area of the 67 licenses. Are there places where Clearwire, or other vendors, provided more free incentives for lucrative contracts?

* The companies are being asked to provide examples of how they provide service to rural areas to address the problem that the contract allows service to be “market driven.”

brett_bursey 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SC Progressive Network Director Brett Bursey addresses the media at a press conference before the subcommittee hearing.

Letters that support public control of 25% of the state’s educational broadband system should include specific cost savings and applications. Address your letters to: Sen. Glenn McConnell, Chairman, Joint Bond Review Subcommittee on the EBS. Send your comments to the Progressive Network at network@scpronet.com or PO Box 8325, Columbia SC 29202.

Leases on table for state’s broadband

Posted on by

The State

A legislative subcommittee took testimony Wednesday about a controversial plan to lease ETV’s excess spectrum to private companies, Clearwire and Digital Bridge Communications.

A plan being considered by the state would lease out all but 5 percent of ETV’s excess capacity. The two companies will pay nearly $143 million to the state over a 30-year lease agreement and build wireless broadband networks that residents and businesses could subscribe to for a fee.

The S.C. Progressive Network and others want the state to retain a larger portion of the spectrum for future educational and governmental needs.

No conclusion was reached by the subcommittee. The State Budget and Control Board will have the final say.