e y e on ar k ansas
Editorial n Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Rep. John Boozman debated Friday at the Peabody Hotel and the meeting illustrated sharp differences. Senator Lincoln defended her vote on health care reform legislation. It produced insurance reform; it shored up Medicare; it provided relief for community hospitals; it protects the smallest businesses; it extends coverage to people in need. Dr. No Boozman said fervently that he hopes he can cast the deciding vote to repeal this modest step to catch up with the rest of western civilization. Lincoln said we need look no farther than the market crash to see the error in privatizing any portion of Social Security, a cause Boozman has championed. She warned, too, against the 30 percent national sales tax he sponsors. It would cripple the working class while providing a bonanza to plutocrats. He demonstrated ignorance of the enormous bureaucracy necessary to collect and enforce such a tax in place of the income tax. Lincoln also noted Boozman’s opposition to women’s dominion over their own bodies. Boozman claimed not to remember his vote against an amendment proposed to an abortion bill to build protections for incest victims who seek abortions in another state. Was Boozman that heartless? Or just that inattentive? Neither is a recommendation. Boozman wants to cut rich people’s taxes and cut government spending. Blanche Lincoln offers comfort to the wealthy at times, too. But she has a warmer heart for continuing federal support for poor states like Arkansas, an effort in which Boozman has been AWOL. Angry voters are supposedly poised to turn out Democrats because they want change. Boozman is evidence, if only voters were listening to debates such as this one, to be careful what you wish for.
Little Rock’s choice n Some voters in the Little Rock School District have a contested election to consider next week pitting incumbent Ward 2 School Board member Micheal Daugherty against Michael Nellums, a high school principal in the neighboring Pulaski County School District. It comes down to this: Daugherty is a vote for the status quo and Superintendent Linda Watson’s uneven leadership. Nellums says carefully that he’d have to become better informed as a Board member before committing on Watson’s future, but his record, particularly in a recent stint as a Jacksonville middle school principal, is that of a change-maker with a fierce focus on students. More of the same or change? That is the question.
201 East Markham Street, 200 Heritage Center West, P.O. Box 34010, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Home page: http://www.arktimes.com • E-mail: arktimes@arktimes.com Publisher Alan Leveritt editor
editorial assistant
special projects
Max Brantley
John Tarpley
Michelle Miller, Manager
MANAGING Editor
photographer Brian Chilson
senior account executive
Leslie Newell Peacock
contributing Editor
advertising art director Mike Spain
account executives
Mara Leveritt
associate editors
Assistant art director
David Koon Bob Lancaster Gerard Matthews Doug Smith
lifestyle editor Lindsey Millar
editorial art director Kai Caddy
Patrick Jones
graphic designer Rafael Méndez
Tiffany Holland
Devon Dennis Erik Heller Katherine Smith Angie Wilson
Real Estate Sales Executive
Automotive Advertising Manager Heather Baker
Advertising coordinators Roland R. Gladden Mikaltodd Wilson
IT director
Robert Curfman
circulation director Anitra Hickman
Tiffany Holland
controller
Sheryl Kee
Real Estate Advertising Assistant
billing/collections
director of advertising
Classified Sales Executive
office manager
production manager
Kelly Lyles
Phyllis A. Britton
Challis Muniz
Weldon Wilson Linda Phillips
Angie Fambrough
production manager Ira Hocut (1954-2009)
FOR SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE CALL: (501) 375-2985
14 SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 • ARKANSAS TIMES
brian chilson
A great debate
REASON TO CELEBRATE: Dancers from Grupo De Danza La Raza participate in an El Grito ceremony held Sunday at the Clinton Center. Mexico celebrates its 200th year of independence from Spain on Thursday.
ERA: Three states more n When you’re competing against the clock for the Grand Prize, you may not win, but at least you’re entitled to your previous winnings. Not so with the Equal Rights Amendment. Congress gave women the nod they were due, but their blessing came with a seven-year hitch. Constitutional equality was an all-or-nothing proposition to be achieved within seven years. Considering it took 72 years to obtain a right to vote, a time limit for all other rights was doomed to fail. ERA was first introduced in 1923 by Alice Paul, a Republican, lawyer and courageous suffragist – who was imprisoned, tortured and force-fed to obtain the vote for women. ERA was essential to acquire all other legal, economic, social and political privileges that were customarily the birthright of men only. “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Forty-seven years of stagnation prompted 20 courageous Pittsburgh NOW members to disrupt a Senate hearing with homemade signs demanding immediate action on ERA. Civil disobedience could have led to their arrest but ultimately freed ERA from congressional stalemate by an overwhelming majority in 1972. ERA attracted over 450 organizations. People from all walks of life lobbied, petitioned, raced, marched, rallied, picketed and boycotted for its passage. It was favored by a majority of Americans, scoring an impressive 67 percent in a nationwide survey. Women’s groups pressed for an extension but were granted only three more years. Despite 35 states approving ERA, it fell three states short of becoming the 27th Amendment. On June 30, 1982, the campaign launched by Congress was ended by Congress. Does a human’s right to equality expire? My friend’s husband told me he supports ERA as long as he doesn’t lose his “perks.” ERA doesn’t apply to the private lives of individuals or business. ERA would eliminate sex discriminatory laws while expanding beneficial laws to both sexes equally. It guarantees that the full range of opportunities exists
Carolyn Cook guest writer
for all individuals based on their talents, capabilities and preferences, and not limited by gender or stereotype. Will women earn equal pay for equal work? Will public policies provide greater flexibility for parents struggling to balance work and family? Will government be held accountable to eliminate sex-based hate crimes such as rape and domestic violence? At what point will the FCC and FTC determine that violent, hate-filled images and lyrics directed at women and girls cross the line of entertainment and free speech to jeopardize peace and security? ERA is the foundation to begin to address these questions. In exile for 27 years, ERA is finally making a comeback. In 2009, Illinois, Arkansas, Missouri, Florida and Louisiana reintroduced the federal ERA. All five attempts were defeated. How can a handful of legislators control the interests of 157 million women? Article 5 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to amend the ratification process. Will Congress hit the reset button on ERA and require all 38 states again or use its powers to jump-start the ratification process for the final three states needed? With an economy struggling to get back on track, beginning a nationwide ERA campaign requiring 38 states is both unrealistic and unnecessary. Congress should give women a head start and a fighting chance by accepting the 35 states that have already approved ERA and allow us to target the three last states necessary to take that victory lap in 2015. Carolyn Cook is the founder of United For Equality, LLC and the Washington representative for the ERA Campaign Network. This article was distributed by the American Forum.