We will gather at the corner of Eden Terrace and Oakland Avenue from Noon to one PM. We will meet briefly afterward to decide on grabbing a bite or not, and what steps we should take next. It is expected that some students from a local high school will be there, and Ted will be back with his camera. I have got several great photos he has sent us to use, but I haven’t figured out how to post them here yet.
See you there folks!
On January 27th, more than two dozen people, ranging in age from 14 months to members of the Geritol Generation, stood at the four corners of Eden Terrace and Oakland Avenue from Noon to 1 PM. Holding up signs that ask “Where is your outrage?” and tell the simple truth that “War is hell” and encourage drivers to “Honk for Peace”, these folks took time to stand with strangers and call for an end to the war on Iraq.
Most drivers passed without comment, but quite a few honked in support. At least one driver parked and joined the group. Students from Winthrop University, and similarly aged people who were not in school, participated. Some members of the Winthrop University Socialist Student Union were there, as were members of Amnesty International. To be clear, this was a York County (SC) Greens sponsored event, and was not associated with Winthrop University, the SSU, nor AI. But having them there was a wonderful addition, and in fact, a vital addition.
After about twenty minutes I heard that the media was at an event in downtown Rock Hill, so I drove my van downtown to invite them to stop by and cover our vigil. They were covering a commeration of the Freedom 9. I was as discrete as possible, not wanting to disrupt what was going on, and was able to let several media folks know what we were doing. I did not have any literature to give them, nor any way to contact me. We have got to get better organized. None made it to the vigil before we had to wrap up.
After about fifty minutes the Winthrop University police stopped by. They wanted the students standing in the median to get off the median, which they did immediately. One officer asked me if we had sought a permit and I told him that I had not, but had called the Rock Hill police and asked them about using the sidewalk and had been told that we could do as we wished so long as we did not impede traffic, including pedistrian traffic, and remained on the sidewalk. He suggested that this was what he understood, but asked me to contact the University Relations office to let them know what was going on. I agreed, and on Monday the 29th I did meet with them.
The University Relations office appreciated being brought into the loop and indicated that they have no problem with plans, agreed to by the folks at the vigil, to hold the vigil again every weekend. They asked me to give them a call each week to update them on our plans, which I agreed to do.
At 1 PM we gathered briefly to talk, and as I mentioned earlier, decided to hold the vigil on a weekly basis. Same time and location until things change. We also went to Tequilla Restaurant after the vigil and ate, getting to know each other better. Please check back in a few days for my report on my meeting on Monday, January 29th, with Robert Hopkins of Congressman Spratt’s office.
These photos were taken by Ted Malone. The first is of his daughter in front of a tank. What a spirit, eh? Thanks for letting us use there Ted.
Timothy V. Gatto of Greenville, SC came to the vigil with his wife. He writes about the vigil at OpEdNews.com, right here. There are several great photos there too.
In a piece he wrote before the rally he points out that people are losing the battle for representation to corporatioons who give the cash the politicians need to get re-elected.
Hey folks,
Well, there were three of us out yesterday in Rock Hill at the corner of Oakland Avenue and Eden Terrace, across from Winthrop University. Signs read “Bring them home!”…”Honk for Peace”…”Join us”…and “Vigil Saturday Jan 27th at noon”
We three got scores of honks, from folks of every description. More than a hundred I would guess. Sometimes there were as many as four or five people honking at the same time.
We got one finger, one thumbs down, and one fellow on a bicycle who said “You should support our government”. We assume these folks represent the pro-war contingent.
All in all it was an hour well spent. One participant is a member of the Army Reserves, one a college student at Winthrop, and yours truly.
Remember, we do it all again next Saturday from noon to 1 PM, and the following Monday we meet with Congressman Spratt’s office.
CHEROKEE COUNTY, S.C.
Duke Energy CEO reveals doubts about nuclear plant
Proposal faces obstacles of storage and finance
CHRISTOPHER D. KIRKPATRICK
ckirkpatrick@ charlotteobserve r.com
Charlotte Observer, January 20, 2007
Duke Energy Chief Executive Jim Rogers said Friday he was growing pessimistic about the company’s chances of building a nuclear power plant on schedule — or at all — because of concern over costs and other issues.
Rogers spoke about his doubts to boost his case for building two coal-fired units for the utility’s Cliffside facility 55 miles west of Charlotte.
“I’m not a true believer. … We’re talking about a renaissance in nuclear. I don’t see it,” he told members of the N.C. Utilities Commission at a hearing to help determine whether Duke can build the coal-fired units.
It was his strongest language yet to commissioners that the proposed nuclear plant might not be built.
Duke had hoped to have the two nuclear reactors at the proposed plant in Cherokee County, S.C., running by 2016 to meet predicted energy demand.
But Rogers told the commission in Raleigh that Duke is unlikely to meet that deadline as long as issues of where to store nuclear waste and financial challenges are unresolved. They include the rising costs of building nuclear facilities and getting permission from the state to recover the development costs from ratepayers if the plant is not built.
The commission this week held three days of hearings on the Cliffside project, whose costs have increased from $2 billion to $3 billion. It will review testimony from supporters and opponents before making a decision by Feb. 28.
Duke has said the planned S.C. nuclear plant, about 55 miles south of Charlotte, would cost $4 billion to $6 billion and take about a decade to build and develop. Company spokeswoman Paige Sheehan said the costs could rise above $6 billion.
In an interview after the hearing, Rogers said nuclear plants are becoming more of a challenge to build. “There are scenarios I can imagine that it’s not built at all,” he said about the company’s planned nuclear facility. But he said Duke was still committed to the project.
For years, environmentalists have opposed construction of new nuclear plants. They cited potential dangers to the public and environment from accidents.
But nuclear energy has gained acceptance in recent years by some environmental groups because it’s considered a clean-air technology that could help reduce carbon dioxide — which scientists say is a major cause of global warming.
Coal-fired power plants are among the largest producers of carbon dioxide — a fact that crystallized the opposition on display Friday during the hearing.
The testimony and cross-examinations Friday of Rogers and other Duke witnesses provided a glimpse into the corporate thinking and strategy of the Charlotte power company.
Rogers urged the commission to approve the Cliffside project, in part, because he hopes the units will be exempted from carbon regulations being debated in Congress. The new Democratically controlled Congress has pledged to pass legislation to curb carbon gas emissions by using a tax or a complicated pollution credit system, which might cost Duke and other power companies.
Cliffside could be exempted from any possible legislation because it recently received $125 million in clean-coal technology credits from the federal government, Rogers said.
Duke has said it needs the 800-megawatt coal-fired units at Cliffside and the new nuclear plant to meet future demand.
Rogers reiterated his position Friday that Duke needed coal as a hedge against the price volubility of natural gas and the uncertainty of nuclear plant projects, which in the past have run into political and regulatory obstacles.
Saturday, January 20th, 2007, the York County (SC) Greens will hold a vigil at the corner of Oakland Street and Eden Terrace Road in Rock Hill, SC from noon to 1 PM. We will be on the street corner, on the side walk, next to the Dacus Library and across from the big “Winthrop University” sign. Please come join us.
The following Saturday, January 27th, we will hold a second vigil at the same time and location. This vigil will support the planned national vigil in Washington DC. If you would like to go to Washington DC to participate in the larger event, visit Carolina Peace for information on riding a bus or sharing a ride. In addition, the Action Center for Justice is offering round trip bus tickets from Charlotte for $50. Sounds like a deal to me!
On Monday, January 29th, local peace activists will visit with Congressman Spratt’s staff in Rock Hill. Congress will be in session, so those from our area who do travel to Washington, and can stay over until the 29th, will be able to visit Congressman Spratt’s office there. If you cannot meet Congressman Spratt’s staff in Washington DC, but would like to join us as we meet with his office in Rock Hill, send us a note by clicking here.
Someone with pockets bigger than mine have offered to give the national party $3500 if the netroots of the party, and that’s us folks, can raise $7000 to match it. The donations must come in $50 or more donations, and can be made securely online at this secure website which the national party has set up just for this program.
Won’t you consider using that link to give to this matching fundraising program? It’s a real way to turn a $50 donation into $75 in funding right now, when it is seriously needed. Please click the link and give as much as you can afford.
American Chronicle has published my piece by that name. In the article I argue that the Democratic members of congress are destined to disappoint those who voted for the US to get out of Iraq, and how a Green approach might be much different. If you care to read it, the link is below.
Gregg Jocoy
From serving as home to Modjeska Montheith Simkins, a South Carolina civil rights pioneer, to serving today as the home of the state’s pre-eminent center for justice, ethics and human rights, the Modjeska Simkins home on Marion Street has served as one of our state’s hot beds of hope.
Now that building, where the SC Greens and the Midlands Greens meet, is under attack. A local business person wants the building torn down.
We Greens must take a stand for herstory. How many homes in South Carolina represent such an important part of our past? From civil rights to African American empowerment to feminist thinking, this building has stood against the tide of oppression and repression that is South Carolina Politics.
Won’t you come to the press conference they are holding tomorrow in Columbia if you can? Won’t you take a moment to sign the petition of support at www.petitiononline.com/Simkins/petition.html ? Leave a message there if you can do more. Forward this to folks you know, people who care about justice, ethics, human rights and herstory. And of course, read the comments below and act as you are moved. Remember, si, se puede. Yes, we can!
Gregg
Collaborative for Community Trust
Modjeska Monteith Simkins Center for Justice, Ethics
and Human Rights
2025 Marion Street, Columbia, SC 29201
M-803-960-2079 allsimkins@yahoo.com
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Catherine Fleming Bruce, 803-960-2079
SIMKINS CENTER CIVIL RIGHTS SITE BUILDING
TARGETED FOR DEMOLITION
Modjeska Simkins Center holds press conference
urging immediate community donations to save threatened building
In today’s Columbia City Council hearing regarding the downtown business improvement district, an effort was made to mark for demolition one of the buildings of the Modjeska Monteith Simkins Center for Justice, Ethics and Human Rights, located in downtown Columbia. A nearby business owner submitted photos of the Simkins building to City officials, claiming that the building is a fire hazard, having been vacant for some time, and requesting its demolition.
In response to this threat, Catherine Fleming Bruce, director of the Collaborative for Community Trust, which operates the Modjeska Simkins Center, will hold a press conference on Thursday morning, December 14, 2006 at 11am at the Simkins Center (2025 Marion Street). She will discuss the significance of both buildings to local and national civil rights history. She will put out an urgent call to the public asking for immediate donations to ensure that the building is saved and to support the maintenance and operation of both structures.
The Modjeska Simkins Center is the only historic site in Columbia, and one of only three in South Carolina listed on the “We Shall Overcome”, the National Park Service website of American Civil Rights Sites. The Simkins Center, located 2025 Marion Street in Columbia, was the residence of Civil Rights activist Modjeska Simkins, a contemporary of Septima Clark and Rosa Parks. For information, contact Catherine Fleming Bruce at 803/960-2079.
There’s an Elephant in the Room.
By Liz Smith-Anderson
Quiet now, there’s an Elephant in the room. No one wants to talk openly about the Elephant. Everyone knows the Elephant is there. Voters who agree with The Elephant will talk in whispers about how God’s people are taking back the government. The Elephant is religious extremism.
Before a recent debate, an elderly gentleman sat next to me and said; It sure is good that God’s people are returning to government. I was not sure whom he was talking about. He told me Ralph Norman had been chosen by God; that he was sure that what God intended would be done through this election. The last time a candidate won an election on his higher moral standards and his selection by God, we ended up with George W. Bush. He has yet to deliver on his promises to abolish abortion, return us to our Christian Values , and make gay marriage illegal. Of course, none of the above are political issues. These are personal issues, not open for public debate…unless you want to be judge and jury, condemning anyone who is not up to the high moral standards of the Elephant. The Elephant has been and will continue to be the issue only whispered about in public, and preached about on Sunday. Otherwise, regular folks would find out what the Elephant is up to.
So, quietly, the religious extremists set to work. A school board here, a town council there. Soon people with a religious as well as political agenda are running government. We are all paying the price. Unlike the Libertarians, I am going to vote. I urge everyone to do so. Religious extremism needs to be exposed for what it is, a big, empty, bag of hot air with no intentions of delivering on its promises. Most Americans have had no say in the running of our country because they fear the Elephant. The Elephant attacks anyone who gets in its way with lies and innuendo.
Religious extremists are now trying to paint John Spratt as the evil sidekick of the abortions for everyone liberal from California, Nancy Pelosi. This seems to be the entire reason that the Elephant has for voting for their candidate. Their article last month contained at least 10 references to Pelosi, without ever making a point. Religious extremism promised to return this country to our supposed shared moral standards. Of course the Elephant defines this standard. The Elephant has a direct connection to God that no one else has. His Creator has endowed the Elephant with the ability to know, without a doubt, what God wants, while ignoring the tenets set before us in antiquity. The Elephant possesses the amazing metaphysical ability to channel the wishes of God directly through the mouth of their ministers and columnists. They know the good
book; they know the way to salvation. And it is the religious extremist’s way or no way. God help anyone who tries to slow them down.
It is time to talk about the Elephant, in public. We cannot be bullied into giving our power over to religious extremists, or to politicians who want to cash in on their religion. Our founding fathers tried to make sure this would never happen. We hold these truths to be self-evident. Now religious extremists want to redefine these words, make our country into something it is not, and destroy any civic and social progress we have
made in these past 200+ years. We, the voter, have allowed this to happen. Only by voting can deflate this empty Elephant. We can build upon the premise that All Men are Created Equal and therefore have equal standing regardless of race, color, or creed (religion). The Green Party can be a viable option for those of you looking for a political party that honors the spirit of the Constitution. For those of you who honor and respect the religious freedoms we enjoy in this country, I urge you to vote by the dictates of your own conscience, not because you were told to in a voter guide that makes the choice for you.
Spratt Vs. Norman: A Green Party Perspective by Liz Smith-Anderson
This November we face a choice between incumbent Congressman John Spratt and a relative newcomer to elective office, State Representative Ralph Norman.
I compared the candidates using information from Project Vote Smart, and the candidate’s web sites. In the Business and onsumers area Congressman Spratt got a 52% rating from the .S. Chamber of Commerce in 2005. Public Citizens Congress atch gave him 100%. Norman got a 67% rating from the Carolina Chamber of Commerce.
Norman supported the interests of the South Carolina education Association 17% of the time and was a supporter Governor Sanford’s voucher system. Spratt received a 100% from the National Education Association, and the National PTA.
Spratt has a long record of environmental advocacy. He received high rankings from the American Wilderness Coalition, The National Parks Conservation Association (100%), Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, the League of Conservation Voters (89%). Norman received a 40% ranking from the South Carolina Sierra Club in 2005/6.
On his web site Norman has blurbs on Agriculture, The Second Amendment, Education, Energy, Family Values, Healthcare, Homeland Security, Immigration, Iraq, Job Growth, and Veterans. Spratt has posted positions on National Defense, Social Security, The Budget, Education, Health Care, and Taxes.
Spratt’s statement on National Defense says “the United States needs to be strong at home, respected abroad, and second to none as a military power.” Norman states “that the best way to secure our homeland is by winning the global War on Terror.” He goes on to express his view that a “ruthless enemy” is threatening our American way of life. He also advocates an “aggressive” approach like the war on Iraq, pledging his allegiance to President Bush.
Norman’s stance on Education is “What is best for our students?” He talks about the dismal state of education in South Carolina, and says that he will work hard to make America’s education system a source of national pride once again. Norman’s children attended private school.
On Spratt’s web site he states that “Education is the most precious gift we can give our children.” He goes on to say that Congress should fulfill the funding commitment made when “No Child Left Behind” was passed. Spratt sent his children to public school.
Healthcare was another area where both candidates expressed an opinion. According to Norman’s web site, he believes that the private sector is the best provider of healthcare for us. Spratt’s view on healthcare is aimed more towards the average citizen. He states that there is a need “to move step by step until every American gains access to affordable medical care.” He is also in favor of tax incentives to help small businesses afford insurance for their employees.
Spratt confined himself to topics of true national interest. Norman added the “Hot Button” issues used to generate heat, not light. Norman wants to change our constitution to make same sex marriage illegal. He opposes a woman’s right to an abortion, apparently without any exceptions. Norman is against reasonable gun control, in favor of destroying the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, building new refineries and drilling off the American coastline in hopes of another few years of crude oil supply.
Both candidates were sent a pledge from Common Cause. The pledge, in part, reads:
“I pledge: To reject all gifts…To travel officially only for substantive reasons…to recognize that it is a conflict of interest for me to rely on lobbyists to keep me in office…To separate my support for certain charities from my work as a legislator…To postpone all negotiations with prospective employers until after I leave Congress…To require my staff to abide by the conditions…Public service is a public trust, and I do not believe elected officials ought to get any special treatment from those who might benefit for the work I do as a lawmaker.” (To read the entire pledge go to www.yorkgreens.com.)
I mailed both candidates a copy to sign, with instructions on who to mail it to. I never heard back from either candidate.
Valid XHTML | CSS | Powered by WordPress