Category Archives: National News/Commentary

Making the Case for Universal Broadband Access in SC

Posted on by

broad
SC Progressive Network Director Brett Bursey (left) and Sascha Meinrath, Director of New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, speak at a press conference before a recent legislative hearing on the broadband transition.

On Sept. 18, Bursey was a guest on Frank Knapp’s U Need 2 Know radio program to talk about the latest developments in South Carolina’s broadband debate. Listen to the show’s audio stream here

[audio:https://www.scpronet.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/BrettBursey9-18-09.mp3]

Bill Fletcher Talks About Organized Labor on Bill Moyers Journal

Posted on by

fletcherBill Fletcher, Jr., will keynote the SC Progressive Network’s fall retreat Oct. 3-4.

With public support for labor unions at its lowest point in 70 years, Bill Moyers on Sept. 18 talked with experts Bill Fletcher, co-author of SOLIDARITY DIVIDED: THE CRISIS IN ORGANIZED LABOR AND A NEW PATH TOWARD SOCIAL JUSTICE and Michael Zweig, director of the Center for the Study of Working Class Life at SUNY Stony Brook, about the state of organized labor.

Click here to watch.

Bill Fletcher will be the keynote speaker at the SC Progressive Network’s fall retreat at Penn Center Oct. 3-4. See our web site for details. Call 803-808-3384 to register for the retreat, which is open to anyone interested in improving the quality of life in South Carolina.

The Other Race Battle Behind Joe Wilson’s Outburst

Posted on by

By Chris Kromm
Facing South

Ever since Rep. Joe Wilson’s Tourette’s-like outburst of “you lie!” during President Obama’s health care address last week, debate has swirled about the role of race in the incident.

Jimmy Carter himself said he thought Rep. Wilson’s rebuke was “based on racism,” and here at Facing South we were among the first to point to the Congressman’s checkered record on black/white relations — such as his 1999 claim during South Carolina’s confederate flag debate that “the Confederate heritage is very honorable.”

But the focus on Wilson v. Obama alone misses another important — and growing — factor in the politics of race in South Carolina and the country: immigration.

It’s no coincidence that the line in Obama’s address that forced Wilson to his feet focused on whether the Democratic health bill would cover immigrants who aren’t in the country legally. Rep. Wilson has been at the forefront of the nativist — and at times openly xenophobic — right-wing movement against not only undocumented immigrants, but immigration in general.

In many ways, the Palmetto State is ground zero for the immigration debate. According to a Facing South analysis of U.S. Census data, South Carolina has had the fastest-growing Latino population in the entire country two years in a row.

That rapidly-changing racial reality is coming full- force against a deeply conservative political culture embodied by Rep. Joe Wilson. Wilson is a member of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, launched in 1999 by anti-immigrant spokesman ex-Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). As Political Research Associates reports:

According to caucus member Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), the main goals of the congressional group are to combat the purportedly “explosive growth” in “illegal immigration” to the United States, reverse the growth of legal immigration, and halt efforts to provide what he calls a “mini-amnesty” for undocumented migrants.

From his perch at the caucus, Rep. Wilson has been a leader in pushing a right-wing nativist agenda. Rep. Wilson has spearheaded legislation to:

* Declare English as the official language of the U.S. (February 2007)

* Make government services available only in English (March 2008)

* In May 2004, he sponsored a bill to have undocumented people be reported to the police if they tried to receive emergency medical care.

Rep. Wilson has openly aligned with the most radical elements of the anti-immigrant movement. This includes the vigilante border patrol group the Minuteman Project, which has been linked to extreme right and racist elements.

Indeed, Rep. Wilson had been so supportive of Minuteman that there was a deep sense of betrayal when in 2005 Wilson expressed mild reservations about “Operation Spotlight,” the group’s plan to expand its vigilante activities beyond the Mexico-U.S. border to raid businesses suspected of hiring undocumented employees.

But the Minutemen PAC has put those quibbles aside over the last week, immediately sending out an appeal to defend the Congressman against “leftist attacks” for his interruption of the president. Click here to see the email appeal.

Other leading elements of the anti-immigrant movement have also swung behind Rep. Wilson. For example, as Stephanie Mencimer reporter in Mother Jones, the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC has urged its members nation-wide to support Wilson.

What does this all tell us? Racial politics are changing in the South — especially in a state like South Carolina. And while Rep. Wilson’s Obama outburst rightfully raised a discussion about the persistence of Old South mindsets, the incident shows how New South tensions over race and immigration threaten to be just as explosive.

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.

SC’s Broadband Transition Provides Unique Opportunity

Posted on by

By Brett Bursey
Director, SC Progressive Network

South Carolina is on the edge of blowing a unique opportunity to be number one in something good, for a change.

Ours is the only state in the nation that
* owns all the educational broadcasting licenses the FCC has issued to that state;
* has a statewide, unified system; and
* supports its entire educational broadcasting infrastructure with state tax dollars.

When the FCC mandated the switch to digital broadcasting, it opened the door for South Carolina to own — or lease to private companies — the nation’s only public, statewide wireless Internet system.

On Aug. 5, a legislative subcommittee will hear testimony on the terms of a contract to lease all of the state’s educational broadband capacity to two private companies. The SC Progressive Network has been urging the state to retain control of 25% of the spectrum for public use.

“Throughout telecommunications history, policy-makers have routinely under-estimated the utility of the public airwaves,” said Sascha  Meinrath, Director of New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, who will testify at the hearing. “South Carolina has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deploy affordable broadband for all residents. It would be a shame for the State to squander such a valuable spectrum asset for pennies on the dollar. This is an issue of prioritizing long-term progress over short-term gain.”

With a clear plan and the political will, we can use the licenses and infrastructure we already own to address big problems. It’s a relatively small investment that would yield long-term rewards for education, job growth and innovative health care delivery. We are now spending millions of public dollars through hundreds of individual leases with private providers to local governments and public institutions.

Until relatively recently, electricity was considered a luxury. When electricity wasn’t reaching homes in rural South Carolina, co-ops were created as publicly owned utilities to power areas it wasn’t profitable for corporations to serve. 

Internet access remains a luxury not available everywhere. Geography and income often determine whether your neighborhood has access. (A 2008 Census report found that only 39% of SC households do.) The current contract only requires the companies to provide minimal service in unserved and under-served areas.

It will take time and money to build our broadband access across the state. But it can be done over time. One WiMAX unit can serve a 10-mile radius with robust broadband for less than $100,000. Richland County is spending $300,000 annually on Internet service, and USC just signed a $840,000 annual contract with AT&T for a campus Wifi system. A public WiMAX/Wifi system for the entire county could be paid for by what USC will spend in several years. The public would own the system and it would cost a fraction to maintain.

If the contract leases out all the available spectrum to private companies for the next 30 years, much of South Carolina will remain in the digital dark, with public institutions across the state paying high rent for decades to come.

Unfortunately, the commission operated mostly in executive session, and the contract is still secret. The Commission was mandated to consider “the costs and benefits, both monetary and societal, that would be borne by or inure to the public at large, as well as the public to be served.” If the contracts are approved as written, it will have failed.

Robert Rini, a DC attorney who specializes in FCC law, was hired by the commission to help draw up the contracts. In November he recommended that the state should retain control of 25% of the spectrum for public use and that this would “not appreciably” reduce the value of the remaining 75%. The commission ignored his advice.

The commission never did a cost-benefit analysis of the public retaining control over 25% of the state-owned spectrum. The $35 million the current leases will bring in over the next 30 years, divided by 46 counties, comes to about $25,000 per county.

Not on the table when the commission crafted its contracts is the $7 billion in federal stimulus grants for broadband development. Experts around the country are mystified that South Carolina didn’t propose a coordinated state plan to apply for a grant to fund a statewide broadband service.

Each state has been assured of at least one grant. For likely much less than the total of all the local grants submitted, we could have had a winning proposal for a statewide public system that would be the envy of 49 other states. It’s not too late. If we retain control of the spectrum the contract intends to lease out, we can use the value of the licenses and spectrum for the 80-20% state matching funds for the next two rounds of stimulus grants.

The Joint Bond Review Board subcommittee — which includes Sen. Glenn McConnell, Sen. Harvey Peeler, Rep. Dan Cooper and Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter — now has the chance to order a study on the benefits of public ownership of 25% of the educational broadband spectrum and make an informed decision that takes South Carolina’s long term public interest to heart.