Category Archives: Network News/Events

Remembering the ladies

Posted on by

iwd_logo2.gif

How and Why We Celebrate
By Sue Katz

On Saturday, women around the world will celebrate our progress and plans for the future. Where will you be?

It’s annoying that International Women’s Day gets a mere whisper compared to the retail shout-out that Mothers’ Day receives in this country. Although I’m not a big holiday/ritual/ceremony kinda girl (no, you can’t ignore my birthdays), I do think this particular annual event is special, so I try to celebrate each year.

Let’s start with some history.

In February, 1909, following a march for labor rights by many thousands of women workers the year before, the Socialist Party of America declared International Women’s Day (IWD) in the United States. The next year, at the Second International, in Copenhagen, women from 11 countries adopted the day in the hopes of furthering women’s suffrage.

In 1911, over a million women and men marked the day around the world, but only a week later the crime known as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire took the lives of over 140 women in the rag trade – mostly Jewish and Italian immigrants – and the struggle against sweatshop conditions became forever associated with IWD.

Russian women imprinted their own radicalism on IWD in 1917 when their strike for “bread and peace” over the death of two million Russian soldiers led to the abdication of the Czar and governmental embrace of women’s voting rights.

Soon the UN adopted International Women’s Day and in 1975, in recognition of the second wave of feminism, held a global International Women’s Year. This meant that, just like the men, we could gather from around the world, compromise bitterly after difficult debate (say, over the inclusion of queers or abortion rights), make resolutions that no one is entirely happy with and be unable to get our governments to put any resources into meeting the goals, anyway. Wow, finally we’ve got a seat at the table of world-level frustration.

While there’s hardly even an official murmur in the States over IWD, there is a website that lists an exhilarating range of world locations and activities – giving the sense that International Women’s Day is not as moribund elsewhere as it seems to be here. This website keeps a tally of events, including the following.

In Saudi Arabia, they’re holding a two-day workshop on integrating women into the economy. A domestic violence group in Albania offers an event they call a Manifestation. Likewise, Tanzania’s having a mother-daughter fundraiser for their domestic violence organization, while the funder in Fiji goes towards building a scholarship fund for “young women studying Automotive and Electrical Engineering at the Fiji Institute of Technology” – the event has the charming name of Women in Celebration of You. In Lebanon they’ll be looking at women’s health. Icelanders are planning to talk about women’s world-wide friendships and about children’s rights, while the Kenyan’s are having a musical festival and handing out prestigious awards.

So what are you doing? I’m going to an annual tea with 90 other women in the afternoon and in the evening to a screening of the as-yet-unfinished film, “Left on Pearl”, about the 1971 takeover that started on IWD of a Harvard University building by the vibrant Boston women’s movement. I was there, so I was interviewed for the film. I’m going to celebrate old victories, because lately it feels like those are the only ones we have.

Sue Katz has published journalism on the three continents where she has lived; her topics range from Middle East peace movements to the impact of ageing on sexuality. Visit her blog, Consenting Adult, at www.suekatz.com.

AIDS fight requires more than politics as usual

Posted on by

By Scott Blaine Swenson

Americans need look no farther than the reauthorization of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to understand why fundamental change is needed in Washington. The good intentions of American taxpayers extending a helping hand to Africans ravaged by AIDS are caught between Republican ideologues and complicit Democrats avoiding a fight on issues at the center of efforts to combat AIDS; sexual and reproductive health.

PEPFAR’s mission was compromised by the House Foreign Affairs Committee because they cannot honestly discuss sexual reproductive health. Once Republican ideologues invoke abortion, which has nothing to do with PEPFAR, problem solving is lost to politics.
For 25 years social conservatives ignored AIDS, using it to marginalize people and allowing the disease to run rampant. Now rigid ideology prevents them from allowing public health experts to use proven scientific methods to educate, prevent and treat. Democrats who compromise are politically complicit.

Ignoring objective analyses and recommendations based on PEPFAR’s first five years from the Institute of Medicine, General Accounting Office, Center for Public Integrity and others, the current proposal fails to ensure the increased funds are spent wisely. Congress will spend more without listening to proven public health strategies.

The good news is the White House has agreed to Congress’ request for $50 billion, over five-years, up from $30 billion President Bush requested. More money is good, but more money spent wisely, based on reality is better.

The new proposal includes efforts to address unique circumstances that women, girls and youth face, including efforts to confront violence against women, promoting property and inheritance rights, expanding economic opportunity to promote financial independence, and efforts to work with men and boys to reinforce positive attitudes and the rights of women. Women in Africa have less ability to negotiate sex, are often married young, and exposed to HIV often through marriage.

Other positive changes include increased training of health care professionals and support for nutrition programs.

Now for the bad news:

Republicans continue to push abstinence-only policies that major studies on PEPFAR indicate impede program effectiveness. An earmark insisting 33 percent of funds be spent on abstinence is gone. But in its place is a requirement that 50 percent of funds for preventing sexual transmission be spent on “behavior change,” defined as abstinence, delay of sexual debut, monogamy and fidelity. The tone of the new requirement suggests that abstinence-only programming is preferred. The proposal requires local public health officials to report noncompliance. Congressional micro-management like this perpetuates failed abstinence-only policies and politicizes a program that should be based on scientific evidence, not ideology.

Continue reading →

A 15-year-old’s take on the Democratic race

Posted on by

I’m so proud of my granddaugher Laura’s (age 15) writing that I had to pass this along. I think she has nailed what’s at issue in our time: hope vs. fear.
Peace,
Dwight Fee

(Dwight is the Progressive Network’s representative for the Low Country Peace Network.)

***************

Hillary Clinton’s switch from dialogue to diatribe
By Laura Schneck, NYC

According to the media, America’s fighter, Hillary Clinton, has made a comeback. The March 4th primaries awarded Senator Clinton only six more pledged delegates than Barack Obama, but proved that she could survive being “victimized” by a misogynistic media.

To me, though, Hillary’s comeback couldn’t have been more of a letdown. 

A year ago, I was just another high school freshman completely oblivious to anything political. And if you had asked me to describe my parents’ political tendencies I’d have to say that they were, at best, apathetic democrats. 

Last January, something changed. My mom would come over and sit with me as I waited to see the results of the night’s primaries. We’d play tag team, watching for when Obama would come out to make his speech. We’d listen together, and, yes, we began to hope together. Night after night, we talked politics at the dinner table with my dad and 10-year-old sister and then sat side-by-side, glued to CNN. I became a fan of top political analysts rather than pop-culture icons, ate lunch with page A18 instead of the “in” crowd, and stayed up to watch the democratic debates instead of the latest reality show. Our family was interested. We were inspired. We were almost ready to ask what we could do for our country.

Then Hillary decided to try a new tactic: making fun of us. She tried to make it sound like we were being duped by Obama, that we were somehow deluded in feeling passionate about a candidate who could bring integrity back to the White House. She poked fun not only at his optimism, but also at ours.  The Clinton people claimed that my family had fallen for a fairy tale, soundtrack courtesy of a celestial choir.

I think I speak for many Obama supporters when I say our enthusiasm is not based on imagination or illusions. I don’t support Obama because he’s “cool,” uses big words, or because I love the way he blows his nose. I support Obama because I agree with his policies on the issues-from healthcare to energy-that affect my family. I support him because he can make it to the White House with dignity. And once he’s in the White House, he will make sensible and substantial changes to improve relations between parties in this country and between countries in the world. Sorry, Hillary, but your patronizing attempt at a wake-up call only motivated me to donate to Obama’s campaign.

Some people wonder why I became so interested in politics, but mainly they ask why I am not supporting a woman for president. I tell them that, although I’ve always favored Obama, I can’t help but admire Hillary’s intelligence and tenacity. Until a few weeks ago, I might have even taken some pointers from her climb to power. 

But then she disappointed me; she began playing dirty. Ironically, her “fighter” mentality made me doubt her strength and my own. As a woman, can I only become successful by putting up a fight? Will people only listen to me if I shout? Will people only take notice of me if I scare them?

Senator Obama welcomed me into this race and Senator Clinton pushed me out. Until recently, the Democratic race convinced me that powerful people can be decent, and one doesn’t need to tear others down to come out on top. I even began to wonder what my apathetic parents had seen so wrong with politics. But the recent switch from dialogue to diatribe has turned my parents back into cynics and may convert me as well.

In the coming weeks, my optimism is on the line. I’ll be looking to see, as Bob Herbert put it, how Obama will confront the kitchen sink.

Oregonians exercise democracy through ‘Voter Owned Elections’ (or Clean Elections)

Posted on by

10,000 Maniacs
by Jeff Malachowsky
CommonDreams.org

Some political scientists argue that voting is irrational, that the act of political participation doesn’t bring enough benefits to the individual to make it worth the effort.

This might be so in many places, but Oregonians don’t think so. Recently, 10,000 have declared, ‘things are different here.’

That’s how many voters coughed up $5 and gave their signatures to candidates running for mayor and city council in Portland, under the city’s new ‘Voter Owned Elections’ system. Moreover, the election is still months away, in May, and it’s only a primary, to boot. What is going on?

Yogi Berra, one of baseball’s most famous orators, once observed – “If the people don’t want to come, nobody’s gonna stop ‘em.” And there-in lies the problem with elections, and with democratic government more broadly. You can’t compel participation; you can’t stop people from sitting out the vote.

But what if you could attract people, make it more fun, more popular – and, more rewarding to participate?

Continue reading →

Columbia passes historic city ordinances

Posted on by

Council Passes Ordinances Prohibiting Discrimination in Housing and Public Accommodations

Today the Columbia City Council voted unanimously to pass ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in housing and public accommodations. South Carolina Equality proposed these ordinances in January and the ordinances passed with little opposition.

C. Ray Drew, Executive Director of South Carolina Equality Coalition, said, “We have passed one of the most comprehensive bills in the country, in one of the most conservative states in the country. South Carolina, and states like ours, represents the front lines of our battle for LGBT civil rights in this country.”

Columbia is the first municipality in the state to pass comprehensive human rights ordinances in housing and public accommodations including sexual orientation and gender identity. Council Members Daniel Rickenmann and Tameika Isaac Devine introduced the legislation and urged the City Council to support the ordinances. Rickenmann and Isaac Devine stated, “When we work together and respect each other, we can make Columbia an even better place to live.”

Columbia joins two other cities in the “Deep South” that have passed comprehensive anti-discrimination ordinances – New Orleans and Atlanta. 

Harriet Hancock, longtime activist and Board member of the SC Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement, said, “These ordinances represent the single greatest advance in civil rights for the LGBT community in the history of our state.”  Hancock was the architect of the 1991 city ordinances prohibiting discrimination in city employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

Drew added, “Working collaboratively with the SC Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement in passing these historic city ordinances is a perfect example of what our community can accomplish when we work together.”

Ryan Wilson, President of SC Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement, said, “There’s a whole new energy in our state. We’re focused and working together. There’s no end to what we can accomplish.”

Does the United States really favor torture?

Posted on by

By Stephen Laurence
Greenville

Some five years ago, in the days leading up to our invasion of Iraq, a local peace advocate carried a sign outside Greenville’s federal building asking “Are we what we say we are?” as a nation. More recently — about a week ago, in fact — a former U.S. House Speaker implored public radio listeners to carefully consider the relationship between our rhetoric and our actions.

An ongoing debate about the acceptability of torture as an interrogation technique has led to passage of the Intelligence Authorization Act, with a provision that bans torture through its reference to the U.S. Army Field Manual. Regrettably, Sen. Lindsey Graham opposed use of this standard for civilian intelligence gathering; Sen. Jim DeMint voted against the final legislation; and President George Bush threatens to veto it.

While we often boast of being the most democratic and most pious of nations, the rest of the world watches our actions and recognizes the frequent hypocrisy between what we say and what we do. Abu Ghraib is one example. The high civilian casualty count in Iraq is another. Guantanamo is yet another. And now we have representatives of the United States, including the “leader of the free world,” condoning torture — albeit couched in more acceptable language — with the ultimate outcome of the issue being uncertain.

Torture is completely indefensible on moral and ethical grounds. Most faith communities specifically condemn inhumane acts toward others. The New Testament of the Christian Bible quotes Jesus calling on us to love our enemies and to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. The United States has been party to the Geneva Conventions since their inception in 1864. And our “greatest generation” punished enemy soldiers and officers found guilty of torture during World War II.

Continue reading →

Moving women from bench warmers to captains

Posted on by

By Linda Tarr-Whelan

Sometimes progress is measured by half-court movements. When I was in school, girls played basketball by different rules than the boys. We played on a half-court and could only dribble three times before passing the ball. Girls were regarded as too fragile to run the distance. Now, tell that to the women in the WNBA.

It’s good to measure positive change, like women’s full court professional basketball. Recognizing these changes is what we celebrate in March as Women’s History Month. But I’m done with simply celebrating where we’ve been. Instead, it’s time to look at March as more a celebration of our future: let’s call it “Women Making History Month.”

Old stereotypes still stand in our way. Even today, only two-thirds of adults in this country think a woman could be president, according to a CNN/Opinion Research survey. Meanwhile, state legislatures — the farm teams for future leaders — have only one-quarter representation by women, a pitiful ratio that has remained unchanged for a decade. The U.S. ranks 69th in the world for women’s legislative representation with only 16 percent women in Congress.

We’re missing a lot and it doesn’t have to be this way. The leaders of some countries have realized that it really does matter who makes the decisions. They see what our leaders have not yet recognized: having more women at the top is good business and smart politics. For example, in Norway, women make up 36 percent of the members on corporate boards, while in the U.S. progress seems stalled at not quite 15 percent. How did Norway they do it? In 2003, Norway passed a tough law that requires all public companies to ensure that their boards are 40 percent women. By 2007, 85 percent of their public companies met the mark.

Continue reading →

SC legislators trump up fear of voter fraud

Posted on by

By Brett Bursey
Director, SC Progressive Network

When I asked the 62 young people at Fairfield High school’s Teen Institute what “democracy” was last week, hands shot up. “One person, one vote,” one said. “Rule of the people,” said another. When I asked what country leads the world in democratic participation, a chorus of “USA” broke out.

They were shocked to find that the land of the free and home of the brave doesn’t rank in the top ten. In fact, the USA doesn’t even rank in the top 100.

The voting-age population in 138 other countries turn out at higher numbers than in the United States. In fact, according to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance’s “Global Report on Voter Turnout,” the U.S. ranks 139th, between Armenia and Nigeria, with an average of 47 percent of our voting-age population participating in elections.

So, no, the USA is not number one. What’s more, the Census puts South Carolina 34th in state rankings for voting-age participation in elections.

Which brings us back to Fairfield High School and the discussion on democracy. I went there to urge the Teen Institute to sign on to the SC Progressive Network’s “Missing Voter Project” (MVP), which is working to identify and engage South Carolina’s voting age-population (VAP) that isn’t registered or doesn’t regularly vote.

In the 2006 election, about 47 percent of the state’s registered voters cast a ballot – about 37 percent of the VAP. It gets worse. In Fairfield County, only 136 citizens between 18 and 21 – about 10 percent of that age group – voted.

In Fairfield, 79 percent of the county’s children qualify for a free lunch. The per capita income for the county is about $21,000. Twenty percent of the population lives below the poverty line, including 25 percent of those under age 18. Drop-out rates are high, good jobs are scarce. Fairfield County, which is 60 percent black, has not had a black representative in the State House since Reconstruction, some 110 years.

Why people aren’t voting is a complex equation of historic and systematic disenfranchisement that may take generations to overcome. Voter registration in this state was once limited to white, property-owning males, and has historically been used to restrict access to the ballot box, not facilitate it.

Continue reading →

Getting MAD

Posted on by

By Ted Volskay
Simpsonville, SC

To those of you who do not know me very well, my daughters are on their HS debate team. HS Debate is wonderful because it makes students look at both sides (pro/con) of an issue. As a parent who values what debate has to offer including development of critical thinking skills in-lieu of blind faith, I actively support my daughters and the debate team with my participation as a parent/volunteer judge. I usually judge the Lincoln-Douglas (LD) or Public Forum Debates (PFD). This weekend I was judging PFD and the resolution for debate was “Russia is a threat to United States interests”. Two student teams are randomly selected (by coin toss) to argue the PRO or the CON side of the issue. After hearing several rounds (this week and prior debates), I was bothered by a recurring argument for those who argued in favor (PRO) of the resolution. Their argument was:

Russia is a threat to U.S. interests because Russia has threatened to aim their missiles at proposed U.S. missile defense installations in Eastern Europe which will be installed only for defensive purposes.  

The name “Missile Defense,” like many of the Bush Administration initiatives (“Patriot Act” and “Clear Skies Initiative”) is an oxymoron for the following reason:

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the unwritten policy whereby those countries (US, Russia, China) that possess long-range missiles armed with nuclear warheads co-exist in peace. It is very unlikely that a country will initiate a nuclear war with another country that is capable of retaliating with nuclear weapons. In other words, the US won’t launch a nuclear strike against Russia (and visa-versa) because we know that Russia is capable of retaliating with nuclear weapons from remote locations. There is little incentive to wage nuclear war if the likely outcome is mutual/self annihilation. Consequently, the MAD policy apparently works. There have been no nuclear exchanges between countries since the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in 1945. 

The Missile “Defense” initiative threatens to change the calculus of the MAD policy. There are many reasons why the Missile “Defense” shield may never work as advertised; however, if it does work to the satisfaction of those who control it, it would enable the United States to launch a first strike against Russia and survive because the Missile “Defense” system would hypothetically protect us against certain nuclear retaliation by Russia. Consequently, the Ronald Reagan/George W. Bush Missile “Defense” initiative accomplishes the following:

1) It disrupts the peaceful equilibrium achieved by the MAD policy;
2) Hypothetically, it would allow the US to launch a nuclear strike against Russia and survive;
3) It resurrects the Cold War between the US and Russia;
4) The response by Russia (Russian missiles aimed at US Missile “Defense” systems in eastern Europe) will foment mistrust between the US and Russia and another layer of irrational fear among an ill-informed and disengaged American electorate; and
5) Most importantly, it provides yet another reason to increase military spending (feed the military-industrial complex that REPUBLICAN President (and Army General) Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell address warned us about:

According to NPR, President Bush’s proposed budget freezes domestic spending and increases military spending. If approved, the military budget alone will be $750,000,000,000 ($750 billion) or more than the entire military budgets of every country in the world combined. If you listen to this link to NPR, you will realise that insane military spending is a bipartisan effort. After all, who wants to be accused of being weak on defense? As a former Navy officer, I agree with General Eisenhower: strong defense? ABSOLUTELY!; self-perpetuating, self-serving out of control military-industrial complex? -NO! I predict that the insanity of out of control defense spending will eventually stop but only when the country is literally bankrupt and the real fear of spiraling inflation, unemployment, and Americans living in third world conditions displaces the irrational fear that cuts in defense spending will lead to imminent attacks by Russia, China, Castro, Hugo Chaves, North Korea, and terrorists sneaking across every border.  

Is Sen. DeMint running for Berkeley City Council?

Posted on by

In a regular e-mail to his constituents, Sen. DeMint seems to be running out of dogs to whip. The Senator – who bills himself as “your conservative voice in the Senate” – introduced legislation to take $2 million in federal funding from the city of Berkeley, California, because the City Council voted for a resolution telling the Marines that its recruiting office isn’t welcome in Berkeley.

DeMint quoted council members as accusing the Marines to be “trained killers,” with a history of “death and destruction” who recruit young people with “false promises of regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits.”

DeMint, never one to let the truth interfere with a good pander, posted this YouTube link in his newsletter.