[Home Page]
[Alternate Navigation]
| |
Page Two | [Welcome] [Home Page] [Alternate Navigation] |
 |
| | "No Death Row!" Jeff Garis, October 13, 2003 -- The movement to end the death penalty in Pennsylvania took a major step forward this weekend as citizens from across the Commonwealth converged on the State Capitol for the largest anti-death penalty gathering in the state's history. The Harrisburg Patriot-News estimated the crowd at Saturday's Rally for a Moratorium on Executions at about 1,000 people. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan joined proponents of a death penalty moratorium on a beautiful fall afternoon on the Capitol steps, where rousing speeches, lively music and chants of "They Say Death Row, We Say Hell No"and "Moratorium Now!" sent a clear message that we will not tolerate inaction from our elected leaders on this issue. "The red flags are up all over this state," Ryan told the crowd. "You've exonerated more than you've executed. Why would you do that?" Jay C. Smith, who spent six years on Pennsylvania's death row before being exonerated and released, joined another exoneree, Hank Kimbell, on the steps as living proof that the death penalty system is broken. Smith compared that system, which nationwide exonerates almost one person for every seven it executes, to a hot-dog stand whose food kills every seventh customer. "Governor Rendell, get rid of the hot dogs," Smith said. But perhaps the most powerful moment of the day was when the crowd heard from the parents of Shannon Schieber, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student who was murdered in her apartment in 1998. The Schiebers described their frustration with Ed Rendell (then the mayor of Philadelphia), who refused to meet with them to discuss the allegedly shoddy police work in the case of a serial rapist who likely could have been stopped before their daughter was killed. Instead, the city tried to provide consolation by seeking the death penalty when the assailant was finally tracked down and arrested by police in Colorado. "Often when you hear about the death penalty, you hear it's to give something back to the families of the victims," said Sylvester Schieber. "This has got absolutely nothing to do with victims. We need to start staring our political leaders in the face and find out why they are trying to kill these people." The rally concluded with a loud and energetic march to the home of Gov. Rendell that stretched for several blocks along the Susquehanna River. It was the culmination of several days of heightened activism against the death penalty in Pennsylvania, highlighted by Gov. Ryan's admonition that the problems which led him to impose a moratorium in his home state are similar to those here. Gov. Ryan's weekend visit to Pennsylvania received extensive media coverage throughout the Commonwealth. For a sampling of newspaper articles from Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and York, see the following links: www.yorksundaynews.com/Stories/0,1413,137~10047~1693585,00.html www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/nation/6987651.htm www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20031011deathpenaltylocal4p3.asp www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1065691944285021.xml?pennnews If a newspaper in your area covered the weekend's anti-death penalty actions, please let us know. And if you have a hard copy of any newspaper articles that you can send us, we'd be grateful. Pennsylvania Abolitionists will continue to escalate pressure on Gov. Rendell and the legislature to do what Gov. Ryan, a committee of the Pa. Supreme Court, more than 70 percent of the state's population and all people of conscience know is the only rational response to the Commonwealth's death penalty crisis: impose an immediate moratorium on executions and the signing of death warrants. Our grassroots network extends to every corner of the state, and in the months ahead we will be expanding our efforts with regional chapters and other groups that are working diligently to end state-sponsored killing. If you are not already active with any of these chapters or groups, we encourage you to get involved. For more information, visit our web site at www.pa-abolitionists.org or give us a call at 215-724-6120. Thank you for your commitment to this critical human rights issue! Jeff Garis is the Executive Director of PENNSYLVANIA ABOLITIONISTS United Against the Death Penalty.  |
| | Bush's Moral Message Losing Legitimacy Matthew Riemer YellowTimes.org Columnist, August 08, 2003 -- On December 19th, 2002, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a report entitled "Wealthy nations ... U.S. stands alone in its embrace of religion." The report begins, "Religion is much more important to Americans than to people living in other wealthy nations. Six-in-ten (59%) people in the U.S. say religion plays a very important role in their lives. This is roughly twice the percentage of self-avowed religious people in Canada (30%), and an even higher proportion when compared with Japan and Western Europe. Americans' views are closer to people in developing nations than to the publics of developed nations." Countries with a similar percentage to the United States were Venezuela, Mexico, and Turkey. Such data can perhaps shed light on the public's view of things like politics and war and the criteria used when analyzing information and events. President Bush is a self-proclaimed religious man and this forwardness (as well as its subject) reverberates throughout much of his constituency. This is potentially one of the reasons why he is so revered by a great many people: he doubles as a spiritual everyman. Played out in rhetoric, this tends to lead to the "moralization" of one's activities so the United States' principles, goals, actions, and intentions are placed in a moral context, presented and explained in a we-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident manner. The concepts of "good" and "evil" figure predominantly in the exercise of logic. Essentially, the argument for war in Iraq was -- as is almost everything else -- a moral one. As time goes on, and as other means and methods of logic fail moderate scrutiny, the moral argument that the world is better off without the evil Saddam Hussein is inevitably fallen back upon, revealing its fundamental place within the ideology advanced by pro-militarism advocates. It is this ideological and moral stratum that unwaveringly supports the Bush administration. To these individuals, the issue of forged documents pertaining to uranium sales, over-hyped stories about aluminum tubes, and the absence of quantities of chemical and biological weapons consistent with Washington's "irrefutable" claims is a moot point. For many Americans, the simple destruction of "evil" is a solid enough pretext for large-scale military intervention, while innocents killed and all the other inevitable crimes and wrongs perpetuated during wars of "liberation" are chalked up to maxims such as "freedom isn't free" and the "price of freedom." This, however, is not the mindset throughout much of the world, and it is here where the distinction between America and the rest of the first world on religion and moral explanations is useful to look at. The majority of Europe, not to mention the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and South America all opposed Washington's preemptive war and are far less convinced by political theories articulated through moral logic and imperative. It is this large swath of the planet's people and governments for which the Bush administration must satisfactorily explain its actions, even when they may be overlooked domestically. These two political relationships -- the domestic and the international -- while separate, do interact very subtly, forcing the Bush administration to strike a fine balance in its rhetoric and propaganda. The international community and intelligent opposition in the U.S. will demand a more internationalized approach and level of accountability from the Bush administration than the traditional domestic bastion of support found most predominantly in rural America. But now President Bush is beginning to receive criticism from an increasing number of quarters, whether about how to handle the Niger flap, or how to proceed in Liberia or in Iraq, or how secretive his administration is. This has led to a decline in the believability and legitimacy of a moral explanation for one's every move, as a growing number of people are no longer willing to just accept the Bush administration's statements at face value. A year ago -- when much of the complex network of lies now being revealed was being laid -- moral politics had a greater currency with the American people who were repeatedly told by government officials and the corporate media about the incomprehensibly evil Saddam Hussein. One event -- Saddam's use of chemical weapons during an attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja -- was emphasized throughout the build-up to war to highlight Saddam's ruthlessness and efficiency as a killer. The 20th anniversary of this massacre happened to be this past March 15th. In his weekly radio address to the nation, Bush invoked the memories of that day: "This weekend marks a bitter anniversary for the people of Iraq. Fifteen years ago, Saddam Hussein's regime ordered a chemical weapons attack on a village in Iraq called Halabja." It must be remembered that this was an event that took place under the watchful eye of the Reagan administration, which, at the time, had nothing much to say about the incident, let alone ironically using it as a conduit for propaganda. The emphasis on Halabja was not only an example of how the Bush administration's main message was the evilness of Saddam Hussein, but also, more importantly, the implicit conclusion drawn from such emphasis: that it is morally obligatory to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In other words, there is no debate in this matter; there is only one way to think. But now the Bush administration is being forced to act in a more candid manner, and it's having troubling doing it. No one in the administration seems to be terribly frank. Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice don't even appear capable of acting civil. And there's a merry-go-round of blame revolving around who's responsible for the purchase-of-uranium-from-Niger line in the State of the Union address. However, the stepping-down of Ari Fleischer is a positive change. His replacement, Scott McClellan, is far less cynical and is actually willing to engage reporters in dialogue, occasionally saying too much. Until this point in his tenure, George W. Bush has been able to rely on morality and the American public's response to that as the foundation for his rhetorical platform. The recent approach now being taken by critics on all sides, though, lessens the legitimacy of the traditional methods of justifying his and his administration's actions. The Bush administration's supposed professionalism and prowess are really propped up by a vast network of lies, deception, and complicity on behalf of influential organizations. For example, the Center for Security Policy (CSP) recently said that critics of the Bush administration may be fueling resistance to American forces in Iraq and that to criticize Bush is petty and partisan. So, in a sense, CSP is calling for a moratorium on debate regarding incredibly contentious issues, while invoking the specter of national security and the "safety of our troops" as its compelling reasons. As the situations facing the Bush administration grow more complex and the presidential election and the campaigning filth it inherently brings draws nearer each week , it's unlikely that the CSP's wishes will be met. The idea that President Bush is literally beyond criticism is likely to offend more than it is to persuade -- especially if one is in disagreement. Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org and encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org This article was originally posted on YellowTimes.org, at http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1518 |
| | ACLU Files First-Ever Challenge to USA PATRIOT Act, Citing Radical Expansion of FBI Power ACLUPA, July 30, 2003 -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania announced today that the national ACLU had filed the first legal challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, taking aim at a section of the controversial law that vastly expands the power of FBI agents to secretly obtain records and personal belongings of innocent people in the United States, including citizens and permanent residents. "Ordinary Americans should not have to worry that the FBI is rifling through their medical records, seizing their personal papers, or forcing charities and advocacy groups to divulge membership lists," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU and the lead attorney in the lawsuit. "We know from our clients that the FBI is once again targeting ethnic, religious, and political minority communities disproportionately," she added. "Investing the FBI with unchecked authority to monitor the activities of innocent people is an invitation to abuse, a waste of resources, and is certainly not making any of us any safer." As the ACLU described in a report released today, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as the rights to freedom of speech and association. The report, Unpatriotic Acts: The FBI's Power to Rifle Through Your Records and Personal Belongings Without Telling You, describes how the law: -- Violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the FBI to search and seize records or personal belongings without a warrant, without showing probable cause -- and without ever notifying even innocent people of the searches; -- Violates the First Amendment because it allows the FBI to easily obtain information about a person's reading habits, religious affiliations, Internet surfing and other expressive activities that would be "chilled" by the threat of investigation; -- Violates the First Amendment by imposing a "gag order" that prohibits those served with Section 215 orders from telling anyone -- ever -- that the FBI demanded information, even if the information is not tied to a particular suspect and poses no risk to national security. "The law as written must not stand," said David DiSabatino, Executive Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "The government currently has the ability to get any record on you it wants, without probable cause, without a court being able to exercise real oversight, and the person providing the records may not say no or ever tell anyone that government agents were there. This lawsuit challenges powers the government should never have been given in the first place." The ACLU filed the lawsuit in federal court in Detroit, Michigan, today on behalf of six advocacy and community groups from across the country whose members and clients believe they are currently the targets of investigations because of their ethnicity, religion and political associations. The lawsuit names Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller as the defendants. The groups participating in the lawsuit are: Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA), which operates a mosque and school in Ann Arbor, MI; American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), a national civil rights organization based in Washington, DC; Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), a human services organization based in Dearborn, MI that operates a medical clinic as well as a center for refugees and torture victims; Bridge Refugee and Sponsorship Services ("Bridge"), based in Knoxville, TN; Council on American-Islamic Relations, a grassroots membership organization based in Washington, DC; and The Islamic Center of Portland, Masjed As-Saber, which operates a mosque and school, based in Portland, OR. Mary Lieberman, executive director of Bridge, was approached twice by FBI agents seeking information about Iraqi refugees. The second time, the FBI served Bridge with a subpoena for all records relating to its Iraqi clients. "Many of our Iraqi clients were granted asylum here because they helped the American military during Desert Storm and were then persecuted by Saddam Hussein," Lieberman said. "It is unacceptable that the United States government is now treating them like criminals and terrorists." Because the FBI subpoena served on Bridge was not issued under the PATRIOT Act, Bridge was able to fight it in court. However, Lieberman said she is concerned that the FBI could return with a PATRIOT Act order that she and her staff could not challenge or even discuss publicly. Nazih Hassan, president of MCA of Ann Arbor, said that the leadership of his local mosque has been vocal in its criticism of the wide net that has been cast over the Muslim community. "We are very concerned that the FBI is investigating us because of our political activities even though we have done nothing wrong," he said. In addition to litigation, the ACLU is supporting coalitions around the country that are working to adopt community resolutions opposing the PATRIOT Act. To date, 143 communities in 27 states have passed such resolutions and dozens more are preparing to do so. Lawmakers of all political stripes have finally begun to reconsider controversial portions of the PATRIOT Act. Just last week, an overwhelming majority of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to bar the Department of Justice from executing "sneak and peek" searches in criminal investigations. That particular PATRIOT Act provision allowed the government to secretly search people's homes or offices without telling them until weeks later. Significantly, the launch of the ACLU's suit coincides with a Justice Department public forum set for tonight at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit. The event appears to be a strategy by the Justice Department to ease rising public concern about its use of the PATRIOT Act and other post-9/11 anti-civil liberties measures. As at similar events around the country, protesters are expected at the forum. The ACLU will also hold a media availability outside the forum venue featuring one of the litigators in the PATRIOT lawsuit and members of the state affiliate. Michigan Rep. John Conyers (D) -- one of the main opponents of the Justice Department's expanded surveillance and enforcement powers -- will also be present. In addition to Beeson, attorneys in the case are Jameel Jaffer of the national ACLU and Michael Steinberg, Noel Saleh and Kary Moss of the ACLU of Michigan. The ACLU's complaint is available through its website located at www.aclu.org. The ACLU, whose mission is to fight civil liberties violations wherever and whenever they occur, is the nation's largest public interest law firm, with a 50-state network of staffed, autonomous affiliate offices..Visit ACLU of PA at http://www.aclupa.org/ |
| | Online Voting in 2004 excerpt from Democracy Dispatches, Number 36, July 30, 2003 -- Thousands of eligible voters will be able to cast their vote on the internet for the 2004 presidential elections. The Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE) began with the 2000 election and included 84 voters. The project will allow persons serving in the military and Americans living abroad to register and cast their ballot on-line. The program is run by the Pentagon and is limited to a number of states that allow emailed and/or non-paper absentee ballots. Various states have expressed interest, including Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. While many agree that internet voting will increase turnout, computer security experts fear that the project gives an open invitation to election tampering and internet viruses. A team of the nation’s top computer security experts has joined the project to identify and guard against possible threats. To find out more about the pilot program visit www.serveusa.gov. AP 7/12/03, Charlotte Observer 7/13/03, Chattanooga Times Free Press 7/13/03 Democracy Dispatches is a publication of Demos. This issue can be viewed online at http://www.demos-usa.org/demos/democracy_reform/dispatches36/. |
| | 47 States Now In Public Comment Phase of Help America Vote Act excerpt from Democracy Dispatches, Number 35, July 3, 2003 -- The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires that each state create a plan describing how it will use federal funds to comply with the new federal voting mandates. The plan should be formulated by an advisory commission, appointed by the chief election officer in the state. A draft plan must be made available for public comments for thirty days before finalization and submission to Washington. Many of the commissions have been generally representative of the states voters, including both election officials and members of advocacy organizations. Some have been very exclusive, excluding almost all representation of various voter constituencies. California, Indiana, Nebraska and Texas have had excellent representation from different sectors of the electorate. California commission members include the Coalition for Living Wage, California Council of the Blind, MALDEF, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, NALEO, California State Student Association and several other local advocacy organizations and government agencies. Nebraska’s commission produced a preliminary report, most of which was incorporated into the plan later put forward by the Secretary of State. Indiana had great outreach. Early comments by its commission members found their way into a draft plan that was then shared with community organizations like the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and disability rights organizations. Texas had similar groups on its commission including ACLU, NAACP, League of Women Voters, and Coalition of Texans with Disabilities, to name a few. By contrast, membership of the New York HAVA commission has been highly restricted. Voter representation was limited to two individuals from disability organizations, and the League of Women Voters. No groups protected under the Voting Rights Act were selected. The situation in Pennsylvania has been even worse. The two “public members” of the commission are legislative staff to two state senators. 47 states now have their plans online for public comment. Visit our HAVA site at www.demos-usa.org/demos/hava to view them all. A number of state legislatures have also passed legislation to implement various plan proposals. Stay tuned for an updated, state-by-state analysis on state implementation of HAVA. (See: Pennsylvania HAVA and Draft Plan) (these links will open in a new browser window) |
| | U.S. Office for Civil Rights Investigates PSSA's Impact on English Language Learners Pennsylvania School Reform Network and Education Law Center, June 30, 2003 -- The Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education has announced that it will investigate whether Pennsylvania’s state testing program, known as the PSSA, is unfair to children whose native language is not English. The announcement comes in response to a complaint filed last year by the Education Law Center, a public education advocacy group. According to the complaint, the state requires all students to take the tests, but does little to ensure that the tests are understandable to children with limited English. Some administrators and teachers have noted that, for some children from language backgrounds other than English, taking the PSSA is an impossible – and upsetting – task. "School districts are all over the map on this," said Marcia Kile, ESL Coordinator for Migrant and ESL programs at Lincoln Intermediate Unit 12. "Some translate the test directions and give other kinds of extra help. Other districts don’t have the staff to do those things, and may be uncertain about whether they’re even allowed. Specific guidelines for accommodations for English Language Learners do not exist. Additionally, an efficient and comprehensive plan for distribution of accommodation information to assure that it reaches principals and teachers is lacking." PSSA scores are used to determine whether children are making adequate progress in school. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, a 2001 law, low PSSA scores can subject a district or school to "corrective action" by the state. PSSA scores are also sent to parents, shown on student transcripts, and used in determining whether a high school graduate receives a "certificate of distinction." "If we’re going to make decisions about children based on their test scores, those scores have got to be valid," said Len Rieser, co-director of the Law Center. "We’re pleased that the Office of Civil Rights has decided to proceed with this investigation." A copy of the complaint filed by ELC in July 2002 can be obtained by going to www.elc-pa.org/ELL/Assessment (clicking this link will open page in a separate browser window) and by clicking on "ELC Complaint to OCR re PSSA (July 2002).doc" The Education Law Center is a nonprofit legal advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring that all of Pennsylvania’s children have access to a quality public education. For more information please visit our web sites: www.psrn.org, www.elc-pa.org |
| |
Inspiration for Weary Educators! excerpt from PEN Weekly NewsBlast, June 27, 2003 -- They leave your school and you may never see them again. They grow and mature, but in your mind, they're still those half-child, half-adult kids you invested a year of your life in. Will the lessons you've tried to impart take root and grow? Here's some end-of-the-year inspiration from the What Kids Can Do website -- a collection of out-of-the-ordinary graduation speeches that should fill you with hope. As one teacher puts it, they offer "strong, youthful voices articulating what matters most to them." http://www.whatkidscando.org/intheirownwords/gradspeeches03.html (this website will open in a new browser window)
|
| | BSA Squelches Change? Brian Willoughby, Tolerance.org, June 12, 2003 -- What at first appeared to be a bold move by the third-largest Boy Scout council in the nation to stop discriminating against gay members now appears to have been watered down by the national office. Scouting for All, an organization dedicated to eliminating discrimination against gays and atheists in Boy Scouts, announced troubling news Wednesday. What appeared to the be a bold move toward anti-discrimination against gays by the Cradle of Democracy Boy Scout Council in Philadelphia has been softened into a less dramatic don't ask, don't tell policy. The news comes from Scott Cozza, president of Scouting for All: "Scouting for All has learned that Scout Executive William Dwyer of the Cradle of Liberty Council was soundly reprimanded by BSA National leadership in a closed-door meeting during the BSA's recent National Scout Council Conference May 28-31 in Philadelphia. The result of the reprimand has been a complete watering down of the Council's brave attempt at a strong anti-discrimination policy." In addition, Cozza reports that Cradle of Liberty has subsequently kicked out a gay and atheist scout, just shy of his Eagle Scout project. The BSA national office and Cradle of Liberty continue not to return phone calls from Tolerance.org. Cozza concludes: "We can only hope that someday soon there will be a groundswell of moral courage within the ranks of regular scouting itself, that will be strong enough to overcome the bigotry of BSA National. That is what we are all working for." Tolerance.org is a principal online destination for people interested in dismantling bigotry and creating, in hate's stead, communities that value diversity. |
| | ACLU of Pennsylvania Discusses Legislative Priorities Larry Frankel, February 5, 2003 -- (LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR 2003-2004, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATEMENT OF LARRY FRANKEL, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PRESENTED TO THE PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 5, 2003) The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is the state affiliate of the national American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Founded in 1920, the ACLU is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to defending and protecting individual rights and personal freedoms. The ACLU of Pennsylvania has around 11,000 members. We have a legislative program and I am the Legislative Director for the organization. We also have two full time litigators and numerous private attorneys work on many of our cases. We frequently present testimony at public hearings of the House Judiciary Committee (and other Committees of the General Assembly as well). We also provide members with our analysis of pending legislation that we think has an impact on constitutional rights and individual freedom. And we make sure that the public, through the media, knows our views on public policy matters. Last session we supported the passage of SB 592 that provides for post-conviction DNA testing and Senate Resolution 149 that authorizes a study of the problems associated with the large number of seriously ill and elderly prisoners in Pennsylvania’s prisons. We are encouraged that both of these measures received widespread support from the members of the General Assembly and hope that they represent the beginning of a serious consideration of significant issues that impact on the quality of justice dispensed by our criminal justice system and the smart use of limited resources to effectively protect all of the citizens of this Commonwealth. During the last session we also lobbied on the death penalty, election reform, Internet censorship, creationism, racial profiling, religious freedom and reproductive rights. During the 2003-2004 legislative session we believe that the House Judiciary Committee must face up to the fact that our state prisons are overcrowded. Just last week we learned that there are more than 40,000 inmates in Pennsylvania’s state prisons. We look forward to the Department of Corrections’ proposed sentencing reforms that could significantly reduce the amount of time nonviolent offenders spend in prison. The ACLU of Pennsylvania hopes that you will show restraint in passing further laws that could aggravate the prison-overcrowding problem. We urge you to study other alternatives to incarceration and consider how the threat of imprisonment can be used to induce more convicted individuals to take part in a variety of rehabilitation or training programs as a condition for remaining out of prison. We also hope to see the legislature address problems with the death penalty. We know that you intend to take up the issue of persons with mental retardation and we hope that you will pass a bill that contains a definition of mental retardation that is consistent with what we see around the nation and that outlines a procedure that is fair to those who are persons with mental retardation. (Please see attached document summarizing our views on how Pennsylvania should respond to the United States Supreme Court decision that imposing the death penalty of persons with mental retardation is unconstitutional). But we also think you should consider studying some of the reforms to the death penalty that have been suggested over the last few years, including: training of defense counsel and provision of adequate funding for defense experts and investigators; videotaping of police interrogation of defendants as well as their confessions; and development of mechanisms to guard against the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty due to the race of the victim or the county where the case is prosecuted. As a result of the work that our Pittsburgh office has done in Allegheny and Venango Counties, we have learned that Pennsylvania’s failure to provide any state funding for indigent defense has caused serious problems in most public defender offices throughout the Commonwealth, particularly in rural, economically distressed counties. We think that it would be prudent for the House Judiciary Committee to start looking at the problems associated with lack of state support for indigent defense. Pennsylvania is one of only two states (the other being South Dakota) that does not provide any state funding for public defenders. State funding is critical for small rural counties that may have a small tax base but are obligated to pay for public defenders. Finally, I would like to summarize our position on tort reform. The ACLU of Pennsylvania believes you must tread carefully in this area to make sure that you are not taking away the right of any citizen to go to court to seek a remedy for injuries he or she has suffered as a result of the negligent or intentional conduct of another. For us the essential question is whether the average citizens of this Commonwealth will continue to enjoy meaningful access to our courts. Measures that diminish that access will inevitably mean less justice in Pennsylvania. |
| | Bush Tax and Budget Plans: Radical and Irresponsible When It Comes to Education and Other Urgent Needs, Bush Administration's Budget Doesn't Match Its Rhetoric People for the American Way, February 6, 2003 -- The $2.23 trillion federal budget that President Bush sent to Congress this week effectively asks House and Senate members to serve as willing accomplices in a scheme that seriously shortchanges children, seniors, low-income families and others who are among the most vulnerable Americans. The president's new budget demonstrates that the Bush moniker of "compassionate conservative" is a veneer, not the values guiding this White House. "Most states are facing an unprecedented fiscal crisis, the budget deficit is rapidly growing, and our nation is poised to enter a war with Iraq that experts say could cost at least $100 billion. In this climate, it is unthinkable that a president would embrace tax and budget policies that are this radical and irresponsible," said Ralph G. Neas, president of People For the American Way. President Bush's $674 billion in tax cuts include eliminating taxes on stock dividends and accelerating his original tax cuts. Additionally, the president hopes to make the original 2001 tax cuts permanent. The Bush tax cuts are tilted heavily to benefit the wealthy over Americans who are more likely to be unemployed or otherwise in need. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Bush tax cuts would give millionaires an average windfall of over $90,000, compared with middle-class Americans who would receive an average of only $256. These changes in tax policy would have a devastating and long-lasting impact. Through the year 2013, by the Administration's own estimates, more than $1.8 trillion in federal revenue would disappear. And this does not include the costs of several items on the President's agenda that could increase the price tag to over $2 trillion. This evaporating revenue will slowly starve public schools, environmental protection, public health programs and civil rights enforcement of desperately needed funds. In proposing his newest round of reckless tax cuts, the president has taken a page from the playbook of ultra-conservative activist and Bush loyalist Grover Norquist who said two years ago that his goal was to cut government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." The nation's most vulnerable citizens will pay the price for these tax cuts, and schoolchildren are among them. Funding for 46 Education Programs Vanishes
At-Risk Students -- President Bush has said the nation has an obligation "to make sure that every child has a fair chance to succeed" and has called education "the great civil rights issue of our time." Yet the president's budget eliminates all $235 million in funding for the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program, which has helped high-poverty and low-achieving schools in all 50 states develop strategies to raise student achievement. The president's elimination of CSR funds defies the view expressed by the U.S. Department of Education, which reports on its Web site that CSR uses "measurable goals and benchmarks" and "is an important component" of the No Child Left Behind Act. Quality Teachers -- Last March, President Bush has said that "a good teacher can literally make a lifelong difference" for a child, but his budget proposal says something else. The president's budget completely eliminates funds for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, removes all funding for the Ready to Teach program, and freezes Title II-Teacher Quality block grants for the second straight year. Parental Involvement -- Last year, President Bush explained that a key benefit of the No Child Left Behind Act was that "[p]arents will have more information about the performance of their local schools and more say in how their children are educated." Yet the Bush budget totally eliminates funding for the Act's Parental Assistance Information Centers, which were supposed to be a critical vehicle for giving parents the information, training and support they needed to get more deeply involved in their children's schooling. Safe and Drug-Free Schools -- In his recent State of the Union speech, President Bush declared, "Another cause of hopelessness is addiction to drugs." Yet the president's budget—released only a few days after this speech—slices $50 million from Safe and Drug-Free Schools grants. The president's budget makes even deeper cuts in after-school programs that seek to prevent drug use and violence. Finally, the administration's proposed budget eliminates $32 million that enables schools to hire guidance counselors who assist students with emotional or behavioral issues. Equal Educational Opportunity -- Earlier this year, President Bush said, "Racial prejudice is a reality in America. It hurts many of our citizens." Yet the president is unwilling to support efforts to level the playing field for all Americans. Only weeks after Bush announced his opposition to affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan, he has unveiled an education budget that completely eliminates the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program, which provides funding to help low-income, minority and disadvantaged students succeed in law school.
|
| | Human Relations Commission Commends Passage of Hate Crimes Bill Janet Ney, December 5, 2002 -- The Allentown Human Relations Commission opposes the efforts of any organization that encourages hatred and seeks to disrupt the community. The Commission rejects the efforts of groups like the Westboro Baptist Church while, at the same time, it encourages everyone in the Lehigh Valley to avoiding confrontation or conflict with its members. We emphasize the Morning Call's advice: "Stay Away." (opens article in separate browser window) The Human Relations Commission views an attack, whether by words, threat of violence or violence itself, on any members of any group in our community as divisive and an injury to the well-being of the whole community. The mission of the Allentown Human Relations Commission is to advance the acceptance and respect of our increasingly diverse population through the enforcement of our civil rights laws and the encouraged use of mediation and education. We commend the work of those who will hold alternative activities as a way to show unity and support for all human beings. We also celebrate the passage of the Hate Crimes Bill, which adds protection by sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, mental and physical disability, and ancestry to the existing Ethnic Intimidation Act. We commend our local members of the Pennsylvania State Senate and House of Representatives who worked for its passage, and Governor Schweiker, who signed it December 3. Janet Ney is the Chairperson of the Allentown Human Relations Commission |
| | Knowing It by Heart: Americans Consider the Constitution and its Meaning Public Agenda, November 7, 2002 -- Most Americans admit they don't have detailed knowledge of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but they've absorbed the core values: majority rule, with protection for the rights of all. In our latest study, Knowing It by Heart: Americans Consider the Constitution and its Meaning, conducted for the National Constitution Center, Public Agenda found Americans have a regard for the Constitution that is deep but not blind. Americans believe the Constitution is a fundamentally great document, but say we should only help other countries imitate it "if they ask." They say rights have to be balanced with the interests of others, and are willing to set aside their own personal views to consider the rights of others. The public also believes that society still falls short of providing equal rights to all and that the rich and powerful end up with more rights than the average person. You can find out more in our special edition on Knowing It by Heart.(link will open in new window) Public Agenda is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public opinion research and citizen education organization founded in 1975 to help leaders better understand the public's point of view on major policy issues and to help citizens better understand critical policy issues so they can make their own more informed and thoughtful decisions. |
| |
Same-sex Unions recognized, (but not in Lancaster!) August 19, 2002, Laura Montgomery Rutt -- In a wonderful sequence of recent events, the media and the New York legislature are recognizing same-sex civil unions! On July 27, Associated Press reported that The Fayetteville Observer's wedding announcements included a same-sex couple. The featured couple was married in Vermont in June, and the publisher of the paper said that refusing to run the announcement would have been "hypocritical or even discriminatory." He also said the newspaper would run similar announcements, if a government officially recognizes the union, and at least one partner is from the area. Currently, Vermont is still the only state in the US that has legalized same-sex unions. California has a partner registry. Outside the U.S., Nova Scotia, Quebec, England, and Germany have similar registries. Holland is the only country that grants full marriage rights to same-sex couples. On August 15, New York City became the first place outside of Vermont and California to recognize same-sex partnerships that take place in other states. Under the legislation, New York City residents who travel to other states to have their union legally recognized would have their union recognized at home. Additionally, couples who have had civil unions will be allowed to retain their status if they move to or visit New York City. And to add icing to the cake, the New York Times announced that they would begin printing same-sex union announcements too! Here in central PA, Lancaster Newspapers has refused to let gay and lesbian readers use the personal ads to seek companionship. In the obituaries, while the Intelligencer Journal will print life partners regardless of gender or marital status, the New Era will only acknowledge partners who are legally married thus discriminating against same-gender couples. There has yet to be a case where any Lancaster paper has printed a wedding announcement of a same-sex couple, but it is not known if anyone ever tried. As far as the classified ads and the obituaries, it is about time that the Lancaster Newspapers stops discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation or the gender of their partner. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a Lancaster couple got married in Vermont and tried to announce it through the Lancaster Newspapers. With the new city ordinance now in place that prohibits discrimination based on gender or orientation, it will be interesting to see what will happen if newspaper policy is challenged. Test case, anyone?? Laura Montgomery Rutt is the founder and director of the Alliance for Tolerance and Freedom, http://www.alliancefortolerance.org |