Pro-Choice And Pro-Life Supporters Search For Common Ground


my name is patty and I am pro-life, I had two abortions. I know what happens to the emotional and psychological part of women My name is John and I’m pro-choice I did six years of the planned parenthood of Golden Gate My name is Marie and I am pro-life and I help women Reverse their abortion once they’ve started them if they would like to do so Nooo, don’t do it I’m the only one? Uh well a sandwich is just something between two pieces of bread and that’s what a hot dog is I disagree because … *laughter* A sandwich is two pieces of bread, right? But a hot dog bun isn’t two pieces of bread. A hot dog is it’s own thing It’s just the way it’s eaten is different If you had a hot dog bun and you put like deli meats in there, would that be still a hot dog? Would it be a sandwich then? that would be a hotdog though Are we gonna solve world peace here? Oh right, we start talking Yeah, because you hear the other person’s perspective and you’re like, okay that makes sense Yeah, no, I think I question mine often because I could imagine that if I wasn’t living my life based on my christianity, I would want women to have that choice as well I used to be a pro-life feminist Really? Yes, until I had an abortion Actually I had two And after I realized what I had done, I knew I had made the biggest mistake in my life I realized it wasn’t my.. I shouldn’t be taking the life of a child So after that I struggled with it for 35 years with my abortions So I have no doubts, I am all the way Pro-life! But I believe, fundamentally, that the woman should have that right to make the decision and I’ve never been anybody who’s pro-abortion and oftentimes they don’t have good choices and they’re picking the lesser of the bad choices yeah I just feel like I’m very certain of my views because I want to respect that everyone has that option and I think that if you take that away, you endanger children more than if you allow them to make that choice for themselves, so But a woman can choose for herself but She doesn’t have the right to choose for someone else because if a child is inconvenient as a toddler, are you going to kill that child as a toddler? No. I think we’re talking about a completely different thing though But no we’re talking science And I’m saying like a lot of times women have to have abortions because of medical reasons That’s like .001% Right Time? Oh, you got us Right in the thick of it My sister had an abortion Almost two years ago, I found out I was pregnant and had an abortion forced on me by a man twice my age Who made a ton of money and I felt like i had no other choice If I wasn’t a christian and if I didn’t believe the things that I believe, I would be pro-choice, like 100%, but at the end of the day, like to my core, I believe that all human life is so sacred and it’s not our choice, it’s never been our choice I realized that I shouldn’t have had that choice because I was choosing life and death over another human being, it’s taking a life But I do understand, definitely understand, where you guys came from The only difference we have is when that fetus becomes a human life If that’s a human being, then my tonsils a human being I think there are very great.. That’s a scary grey area And in the bible, you didn’t say, you know, I don’t know what part of christianity but Jesus says before I formed you in your mother’s womb, I knew you and not a sparrow falls from the sky without my knowing I feel like I really respect you and your faith I respect that that’s your feeling and that you all feel that way, but I also feel like one can feel that way regardless of the Bible, regardless of Christianity, you know it’s one of those things that happens and has happened, actually for decades, you know for a while and people make that decision and it is their decision, they make that decision for whatever reasons. You know? Again, you help people who have taken a pill first then change their mind and I think that’s great But if you have one and you feel regretful then deal with it. If you have one, you don’t really feel regretful or you feel like it really truly was the best decision for you, then that’s what happens and I just think we all know people like that or I’d just don’t feel like we have any right to force a particular way and you know, I think it’s great to try to just be open, you know? Pretty judged around my beliefs Hey guys How you been? It’s been a long time I think we all feel that way because because it’s an emotional, very emotional topic I’ve actually been verbally attacked by a lot of the pro-choice people you know about what I went through, with the regret, the alcoholism, and all of that stuff that tied into the abortion For me, something that Marie said a little bit while ago about her Christian faith and implicit in that is that someone who’s pro-choice isn’t Christian I was raised a Roman Catholic. I consider myself a Christian. I don’t believe that there’s anything in Christianity, as I understand it, that requires me to believe that abortion is murder I grew up in a Christian home, my mom’s a pastor, but they also respect that they know that it’s my ultimate decision and they know that what it is that I’m gonna do, what I’m gonna choose for my life, they don’t have control over and that I am an adult Sometimes in the argument, between the two sides there’s a lack of respect for the fact that, like, I don’t have to agree with you You live your life the way that you want you and I’ll live it the way I want to, as long as you’re not stopping… Aw Sorry you guys I have two kids, one a son who’s 30 and then a daughter who’s 28 I have one son, who is 36, he’s adopted I couldn’t have children biologically I convinced a doctor to give me a tubal ligation because I didn’t feel I punished myself for having the abortions I have a daughter, she’s a year old, and she’s in heaven To me in my experience at planned parenthood, almost everybody had kids and the slogan, if you will, of Planned Parenthood was “no child an unwanted child” And we wanted our children and that’s why we chose to have them What about all the people that would gladly take care of that child, that cannot have a pregnancy to save their life? Well because a woman has to go through.. Nine months for a whole life that a child could have? I think one of the things that I really immediately reacted to is that Okay, nine months, whatever, but there are so many children, not just in America, but the world over that don’t have loving parents, that are not in a loving situation, that are not cared for, fed, clothed, loved! And I think that is the most important thing, to care about our children, because they are our future So the child in the womb has no value whatsoever? No, I don’t think so at all. I’m not saying that, I never said that Okay, I’m just asking, yeah I’m just saying that to me that’s unclear whether it’s you know, this or that or this or that, and despite the fact that you say there are people out there that want to adopt this child or want to take care of this child, there are still so many that are not And that’s horrible I don’t think that wrong makes this right though No, I understand that, I’m not saying that, I’m only responding to your comment My view is I don’t want to, personally, want to have kids. I want to adopt all my children because of that reason And because I lived with a family that took me in, when my family didn’t want me And so I understand that One, the foster system and adoption is not that easy and if we’re making it about taking care of the child, yeah, let’s do that, let’s take care of the children But we need to make sure that there are opportunities in place for all the children to be successful so that that child has a world to come into that’s actually gonna be good to it because we don’t live in that world right now We don’t offer those things to our children You should talk to a lot of the people that came from a ton of adversity who’ve now made it in this world We’re not talking about that, we’re not talking about the success We’re talking about kids today that do not have a home Yeah, and their worth, that worth, in my opinion, is exactly equal to a twenty week baby in a womb I totally understand and I respect that I’m only saying, my only comment was I feel like it’s unfair to be, like “Well, Blah, blah, blah! Nine months, why can’t you just have a kid for nine months and they give it up?” Ohhhh cool It is getting cooler in here, though, isn’t it? It is Um I wasn’t expecting to hear some of the stories about people’s lives and their experiences, who’ve had abortions and like, I can only imagine the pain that is associated to making that decision and I have a lot of compassion and sympathy for people who go through that I wasn’t expecting, i wasn’t expecting, it to be as calm as it was I think that there were moments, but I think, for the most part, we were respectful of each other and I still think that you guys are awesome people, I mean, outside of this situation I wasn’t surprised at how this has gone because when we were all talking outside it didn’t make any difference whose side was on whose side and we all bonded right away, you know, Sometimes, our levels got a little bit raised but, you know what, we all respect each other No matter what you do, you’ve heard all the arguments there’s not gonna be one argument where you’re like “Oh my gosh, you just changed my mind” No, it’s never gonna, you know, people are who they are and it usually takes a certain situation happening, but I think it’s healthy to have the dialogue. I think it doesn’t happen enough, it happens too much behind our computers Oh ok It’s cool Sorry dog Nice meeting you! Nice meeting you! It was great Great meeting you, sweet thing

Trump: Why Did We Wait 100 Years to Celebrate Centennial?


I have one of those stranger than fiction
moments for you. That sounds like it would be a good Monte
Python skit or something. Donald Trump suggested yesterday that the
Centennial of women’s right to vote in the United States should have been celebrated
sooner, but finally because Donald Trump gets things done, we’re celebrating it and commemorating
it now Trump apparently not realizing that a Centennial means a hundred years after the
thing, so you do it when a hundred years have passed, not earlier. That wouldn’t really make sense. Check this out from an oval office ceremony
yesterday with Trump signing the women’s suffrage Centennial coin act and have, they’ve been working on this for
years and years and I’m curious why wasn’t it done a long time ago and also I guess the
answer to that is because now on precedent we get these, we get a lot of things done
that nobody else got done, but maybe you could say a few words, you’ll start over. Well, no, it doesn’t have to do with you being
president Donald. It’s that it makes sense because it’s been
a hundred years. Of course, the 19th amendment was ratified
in 1920 2020 next year. The year that’s about to start will be 100
years of women’s right to vote in the United States. It makes a lot of sense when you understand
what a Centennial is. Evidence of a totally stable genius for sure. And remember Sarah Huckabee Sanders told us
yesterday, as I told you about, that Donald Trump reads more than anyone she knows, hard
to believe, hard to believe. Trump also apparently set to sign into law
that in 2020 everyone is going to get a birthday. No president before has thought to do this,
but Trump is going to decree that in 2020 everybody who’s alive gets a birthday. Seriously, though, we’re having a good time
here watching stuff like this, but it is extra painful when you realize the amount of power
that this man currently holds and right-wingers are of course already saying, look, Trump
was making a very subtle joke. Trump barely understands humor and the only
jokes he’s ever made are ones where he makes fun of people or gives them some kind of a
nickname. This was not a joke. This was ignorance and that’s it. The last opportunity to get in on the black
Friday membership special, get on our mailing [email protected] midday Friday. If you’re on that mailing list, you will get
an email with a one day only one time. Use coupon code for a massive membership discount. Get on that newsletter. Let me know what you think about Trump’s quote. Joke by sending me a message on Twitter at
the Pacman. We will take a break and then the last show
before for the Thanksgiving holiday

Should Half of the U.S. Government Be Female? (feat. Ilhan Omar)


(light music) – In 1916, Jeannette Rankin was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. It was a big deal. That’s because Rankin was the first woman ever elected to Congress. In 1916, four years before all U.S. women were even given the right to vote. (intense music) Since Rankin was elected, the
number of women in Congress has been rising steadily, but
today, even 100 years later, women still only hold 20% of the seats and get this, Vermont,
sorry Vermont, but this is totally true, you still never even elected a single woman to Congress! Other states aren’t much better. Jeannette Rankin was from Montana and yet, she remains the
only woman Montana has ever sent to Congress. In your words, what is a gender quota? – So, a gender quota is gonna be a policy that is going to require
that we either select female candidates or we elect female candidates for elected office. So today, there are more
than 130 countries worldwide that have modified either
their Constitutions or their electoral laws
or party rules to mandate that a certain proportion
of women be included as either candidates or legislators. – [Host] According to the
interparliamentary union, the U.S. lags behind 102 other countries in gender equality and one
of the possible reasons is that nearly half of all
countries on the planet have some kind of gender quota system. – Yes, the United States is well behind many other countries. If you look at the world rankings in terms of women’s share
of legislative office, we’re 103 in the world rankings. We’re between Indonesia and Kurdistan. – At this point, let me ask
a cold and heartless question and I understand the irony
that this is coming from a guy, but why does it even matter how many women serve in Congress? Well, the answer is
that percentages matter. Many experts have calculated
that women need to make up at least 30 to 40 percent
of a governing body before their voices really
start to gain traction. Anything less and it’s almost
like they’re not even there. So if we made America from scratch today, what if we made it a
rule that 35% of Congress needs to be women? – All of the studies that we’ve done that have looked at the
quality of the politicians that we elect via gender quotas suggest that the women that are
elected via those policies are as or more qualified
than their male counterparts. So, my work from Uganda
and Sweden shows that. There’s from Italy and
from France, Morocco, and so quotas increase
women’s presence in office without degrading the
quality of representation. – So, why have so many
countries adopted gender quotas? – Pressure from the
international community. So, the United Nations
and other international governing organizations
strongly support gender quotas and so now, what we see, for example, is virtually any country
that’s coming out of a conflict and creating a new constitution,
doing constitution building is going to be strongly
encouraged to adopt a quota to ensure women’s presence in politics. – Quotas, as you can imagine, are a pretty controversial topic. Many people say that
they’re anti-democratic or even anti-equality
because they’re giving preferential treatment to
a certain type of person. Some people argue that
it’s an un-American idea. – So, I strongly support
the election of women to legislative office and I
think that’s really important for lots of reasons. I do not support having
a gender quota rule or a gender quota law for U.S. Congress. In many cases, what gender quotas do is strengthen the hand of party leaders who hand-pick candidates. So, if you’re in Mexico, for example, now there’s a parity law, 50%
of candidates have to be women and so, gender quotas actually
don’t challenge that system. They still allow kind of an old school type of politics where you have people hand picking your preferred candidates and so, that preserves the status quo and it means that the
women who get selected, like the men who get
selected, tend to be loyal to the party bosses, to the party leaders. – [Host] Then there’s
representative Ilhan Omar, the first Somali-American
Muslim legislator elected to office in the United States. Even though she has said
that everyone wanted to make gender an issue during her campaign, she still doesn’t believe a quota is the right path to parity. – I don’t know if having
a gender quota set in law is helpful, but I think
have that as the people vote to think about getting you
know, equitable representation. I think also, it becomes
a hindrance for success while after election, right? Because people just see you
as being a representative of that gender or identity or whatever. We can nudge people out
of their complacency to recognizing that our
democracy really hasn’t been that representative
and it really hasn’t been that reflective of the
communities around our country. – Several studies have shown
that a majority of U.S. women still believe they face barriers to office based on their gender
and they say they feel discouraged from getting involved. – Research shows that ya
know, young men and women, when they see women in office, they think, “Oh, I could run for office,” and it shapes their vision of
what’s possible in the world. So that has a really, really
powerful effect in terms of challenging stereotypes that
people have about gender. – While we believe a
white person can represent everybody, people of
color can only represent, or women can only represent places where there’s a majority of them. They can only represent their voices. I mean, it certainly played out in my race whether it is true or
not, people still believe that I am elected as a person of color, as an immigrant because I must represent a community that is a reflection of me. Well, my community is a reflection of me not because of my identity
or my gender, right? Because my community is 70% white and that’s not a conversation
that people have. They are often surprised
because they think of my district as being the
minority majority district. – Those who favor quotas
say this is exactly the reason we need them. They can fast track social changes that would otherwise take generations. – I mean, you’re absolutely right. It’s gonna take a long
time for us to get to 50% men, 50% women, ya know, 150 years sometimes is the estimate and that’s why a lot of countries adopted gender quotas in the first place because the rate of change was so slow, they realized if you just
adopt a gender quota, you can bump up to a really
high level really quickly and that’s proven to be
true in case after case. – As you can see, there are smart people on both sides of this
idea, but to be fair, there may be one other huge reason why quotas may not work in America. That has to do with how we vote. Do you think that we would be able to have a gender quota based on
our electoral system? – It’s difficult to imagine it and there have to be
kind of limits or caps on the number of men and
women who can run for office in a particular primary. Right now, the only thing
you need to run for office is you have to be a citizen,
you have to meet the age requirement and you have to meet the residency requirement. So, to impose gender as a criterion there which is what a gender quota would do, it’s just really difficult to
imagine that actually working. That said, we do have gender
quotas in the United States. When the trafficking was
expanded to women in 1920, both the Republican and Democratic parties adopted gender quotas for
positions of leadership within the parties. Just last week, the state democratic party in the state of Pennsylvania,
there was an election for the members of the
democratic committee and the top vote getters were all women, but because they have a
quota of 50% men, 50% women, they took two men and
kind of bumped them up even though they weren’t
the top vote getters because of the gender quota that existed. So, in a political moment
where you have a lot of women running for office, the
gender quota could actually work as a ceiling rather than as a floor. – I think we’re a long way from parity, and particularly less
incumbency is really strong. Over 90% of incumbents win
reelection when they run and most incumbents are are men. So, I think if we’re gonna
just do things slowly, we’re a long way from
being at even a third of our legislators being
women, let alone 50%. – So, let’s break this down. On one hand, there are places where quotas appear to be working. On the other hand, they seem
to present new challenges for the very people they’re meant to help and we might have to totally
rebuild our voting process to make them workable. So, what do you think? Would a quota system be a good idea? How would our government
change if we had it? Let us know your thoughts. Thank you so much for
watching America From Scratch. I’m enjoying this brownie but I have a great question for you. Our next episode is
gonna be about mandatory military service, so click
the link in the description and let us know what you
think about mandatory military service. Also, do not forget to subscribe to us. Thanks so much. Mm, God. This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Civil Rights & Liberties: Crash Course Government #23


Hi, I’m Craig, and this is Crash Course Government
and Politics, and today we’re finally, at long last, moving on from the structures and
branches of government and onto the structures and branches of trees. This is a nature show
now. Okay, we’re not moving on completely, because
we’re still talking about courts, but today we’ll be discussing actual court decisions,
and the kind of things that courts rule on, rather than how they do it. That’s right,
we’re moving onto civil rights and civil liberties. [Theme Music] Okay, first I want to talk about something
that I find confusing: the difference between civil rights and civil liberties. Usually in America,
we use the terms interchangeably, which adds to the confusion, but lawyers and political scientists
draw a distinction, so you should know about it. Then you can go back to calling civil liberties “rights”
and civil rights “liberties,” and most people won’t care. But I’ll care. I’ll be disappointed in you. So civil liberties are limitations placed
on the government. Basically, they are things the government can’t do that might interfere
with your personal freedom. Civil rights are curbs on the power of majorities
to make decisions that would benefit some at the expense of others. Basically, civil
rights are guarantees of equal citizenship, and they mean that citizens are protected
from discrimination by majorities. Take, for example, same sex marriage. You
could think of it as a liberty, except that not everyone is free to marry at any given
time. Six year olds can’t get married, and you can’t marry your sibling. But same sex marriage is a civil rights issue
because in the states that don’t allow it, the majority of voters is denying something to a minority,
creating inequality in the way that the laws work. Now, just to make things more confusing, lawyers
often talk about the difference between substantive and procedural liberties, but they usually
call them rights instead of liberties. That’s a lawyer eagle. A legal eagle. Substantive liberties are limits on what the
government can do. For example, the first amendment says that congress shall make no
law establishing religion. So this means that they cannot create a national church or declare
that Christianity or Islam or Hinduism is the official religion of the US. Procedural liberties are limits on how the
government can act. For example, in America in courtroom dramas, there is a presumption
that someone is innocent until proven guilty. This presumption means that in criminal cases,
juries and judges have to act as though the accused is innocent until the prosecution
convinces them otherwise. If they are not convinced, the accused person doesn’t go to
prison. So now that we understand the difference between
civil rights and civil liberties perfectly because of my amazing explanation, let’s focus
on liberties and try to figure out what they are and where they come from, with some help
from Thought Bubble. So civil liberties are contained in the incredibly
unhelpfully named “Bill of Rights,” which isn’t even called that in the Constitution.
It’s just a name that we give to the first 10 amendments. The 9th amendment is included to remind us
that the list of liberties and/or rights in the other amendments isn’t exhaustive. There
might be other rights out there, but the constitution doesn’t specifically say what they are. Thanks
constitution. In some cases, it’s pretty clear. The first
amendment, for example, says that “congress shall make no law respecting the establishment
of religion, or abridging the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech
or of the press to assemble or to infringe the right to petition the government for redress
of grievances.” Pretty straight forward. But other cases are not so clear. The second amendment says “the right to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed,” but it doesn’t say by whom. Same thing with the
5th amendment guarantees against self incrimination. Could congress force you to incriminate yourself?
How would they do that? And the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and
unusual punishments, like presumably shock pens, but it doesn’t say who is forbidden
from cruelly and unusually punishing. My mom wasn’t forbidden from keeping me from playing
video games. As usual, we might expect the Supreme Court
to sort out this mess, but initially they were no help at all. In a case that you’ve
probably never heard of, called Barron vs. Baltimore, decided in 1833, the court said
that the Bill of Rights applied to the national, meaning federal government, not to the states. They said that every American has dual citizenship,
but not the good kind. They meant you are a citizen of the US and of the state in which
you reside, and basically that the constitution only protected you from the federal government. In other words, if the state of Indiana wanted
to punish me cruelly or unusually, they could. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So Barron vs. Baltimore
left Americans in a bit of a civil liberties pickle, and not the good kind of pickle. They were protected from the national government
doing terrible things, like quartering troops in their homes, but not from the state doing
the same thing. And since the state was close to home and
the national government was far away and, compared with today, tiny and weak, these
protections were pretty weaksauce, so what happened to change this? I hope something,
because I like a zesty government sauce. The 14th amendment & the Supreme Court happened.
After the Civil War, as part of the reconstruction, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were added
to the constitution. Of these, the 14th is the most important, probably the most important
of all amendments. What does it say? Well the first section, which is the one that
really matters, and I’m not going to read the whole thing okay? It reads “all persons
born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” What this means is that the federal government’s
like: “Listen states, you can’t be dumb. Just stop it. Okay? We’re all in this together.
Alright?” It means states can’t deny equal protection, civil rights, or due process,
which in this case encompasses civil liberties. This in theory makes it impossible for states
to infringe upon the liberties and the Bill of Rights. But the legal system being what it is, it’s
not quite that simple. Did you think it’d be simple? The Supreme Court could have just
ruled that all the rights and liberties in the Bill of Rights applied to the states,
which seems to be what the 14th amendment implies, but they didn’t. Instead they ruled
that each of the rights or liberties had to be incorporated against the states on a case-by-case
basis. This is a concept called selective incorporation,
and it supposedly reserves more power to the states. What it really means is that when people
felt that the states were violating their liberties, they had to go to the Supreme Court, which by now
has incorporated almost every clause in the Bill of Rights against the states. You want examples? We’ve got them. In the
famous case of Gitlow vs. New York, the court ruled that the first amendment protection
of the freedom of speech could not be violated by a state. In this case, it was New York,
but once a liberty is incorporated against one state, it’s incorporated against all of
them. In Mapp vs. Ohio, the court ruled that states couldn’t use evidence gathered from
warrantless searches. In Benton vs. Maryland, the right against Double Jeopardy, being tried
for the same crime twice, was incorporated against the states. By now, almost all the
rights and liberties mentioned in the first ten Amendments have been incorporated against
the states. This means that individuals are protected from all their governments taking
away their liberties, and that’s a good thing. I loves my liberties. So we’ll be talking about civil rights and
civil liberties for a number of episodes, and this topic, while confusing, can be lots
of fun. We might play liberties bingo, or civil rights kickball. I don’t know what those
things are, but they sound like fun. The main thing to remember is that going all the way
back to the framers, Americans have been concerned about a too powerful government taking away
citizens’ freedoms. Yes, these liberties apply mostly to citizens, although some do apply
to non-citizens, too. In order to put limits on government, the Bill of Rights was added
to the Constitution in 1789, but this didn’t mean that those limits applied to the states,
probably because the founders expected states to be the main protectors of rights, and in
fact, many state constitutions have provisions that copy or in some ways, go beyond what’s
in the US Constitution. Only after the 14th Amendment was passed, following the Civil
War, did the national government get around to addressing this issue of states denying
people’s liberties. Even then, it took numerous court cases for us to get to the point that
most civil liberties that we assume cannot be taken away by the government have actually
been guaranteed through the process of selective incorporation. It’s taken a long time to get
where we are, and there’s still a long way to go. Protecting civil liberties requires
vigilant citizens to be aware of the ways that government is overstepping its bounds,
but that’s only half the equation. It’s also vital that our majority pay attention the
civil rights of others, and that we ensure that everyone is afforded the same protections
and benefits promised by our system of law. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next time. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced
in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course US Government comes from
Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org. Crash Course is made with the
help of these nice people who are innocent until proven guilty. Thanks for watching.

California | Bernie Sanders


Sanders:
What choice do Californians
have in this election? The biggest one of all. You have the power
to choose a new direction for the Democratic party. To break the back of a corrupt
system of campaign finance that keeps a rigged economy
in place. To stand up to Wall Street and make the wealthy
pay their fair share. To fight for tuition-free
public college and universities. California,
it’s a long way to Washington, but you can send them
a message they can’t ignore. I’m Bernie Sanders,
and I approve this message.

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?


I was raised a practicing Muslim and remained
one for almost half my life. I attended madrassas, that is, Islamic schools,
and memorized large parts of the Qur’an. As a child, I lived in Mecca for a time and
frequently visited the Grand Mosque. As a teenager, I sympathized with the Muslim
Brotherhood. At 22 while my family was living in Kenya,
my father arranged my marriage to a member of our family clan, a man that I had never
met. I ran away, made my way to Holland, studied
there and eventually was elected a member of the Dutch parliament. Now I live in the United States. In short, I have seen Islam from the inside
and the outside. I believe that a reform of Islam is necessary
and possible. And only Muslims can make that reform a reality. But we in the West cannot remain on the sidelines
as though the outcome of this struggle has nothing to do with us. If the jihadists win and the hope for a reformed
Islam dies, the rest of the world will pay a terrible price. The terror attacks in New York, London, Madrid,
Paris and many other places are only a preview for what is to come. For this reason, I believe that it’s foolish
to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name
of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. For more than a decade, my message has been
simple: Islam is not a religion of peace. When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic
belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case: There are
many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. What I do say is that the call to violence
and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence
is there to be activated by any number of offenses, including but not limited to adultery,
blasphemy, homosexuality and apostasy –that is to leave Islam. Those who tolerate this intolerance do so
at their peril. As someone who has known what it is to live
without freedom, I watch in amazement as those who call themselves liberals and progressives–people
who claim to believe so fervently in individual liberty and minority rights–make common cause
with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to that very freedom
and those very minorities. In 2014 I was invited to accept an honorary
degree from Brandeis University for the work I have done on behalf of women’s rights in
the Muslim world. That invitation was withdrawn after professors
and students protested my criticism of Islam. My subsequent “disinvitation,” as it came
to be called, was no favor to Muslims –just the opposite. By labeling critical examination of Islam
as inherently “racist,” we make the chances of reformation far less likely. There are no limits on criticism of Christianity
at American universities or anywhere else, for that matter; why should there be of Islam? Instead of contorting Western intellectual
traditions so as not to offend our Muslim fellow citizens, we need to defend both those
traditions and the Muslim dissidents who take great risks to promote them. We should support these brave men and women
in every way possible. Imagine a platform for Muslim dissidents that
communicated their message through YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. These are the Muslims we should be supporting–for our sake as much for the sake of Islam. In the Cold War, the West celebrated dissidents
such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, and Václav Havel, who had the courage to
challenge the Soviet system from within. Today, there are many dissidents who challenge
Islam, but the West either ignores them or dismisses them as “not representative.” This is a grave mistake. Reformers such as Tawfiq Hamid, Asra Nomani
& Zuhdi Jasser and many others must be supported and protected. They should be as well known as Solzhenitsyn,
Sakharov, and Havel were in the 1980s. If we do in fact support political, social
and religious freedom, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass on the grounds
of multicultural sensitivity. We need to say to Muslims living in the West:
If you want to live in our societies, to share in their material benefits, then you need
to accept that our freedoms are not optional. Islam is at a cross roads of reformation or
self-destruction. But so is the West. I’m Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Harvard University
for Prager University.

The Roaring 20’s: Crash Course US History #32


Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course US History, and today we’re gonna learn about one of the best eras ever: the 1920s. The 20s gave us jazz, movies, radio, making out in cars, illegal liquor, and the 20s also gave us prosperity–although not for everybody– and gangsters, and a consumer culture based on credit, and lots of prejudice against immigrants, and eventually the worst economic crisis the US has ever seen. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, but what about Gatsby? Yeah, me from the past, it’s true that Gastby turned out all right in the end, but what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust trailed in the wake of his dreams, did temporarily close out my interest in the aborted sorrows and short-winded elations of men. *theme music* So there’s a stereotypical view of the 1920s as “The Roaring 20s,” a decade of exciting change and new cultural touchstones, as well as increased personal freedom and dancing. And it really was a time of increased wealth– for some people. The quote of the decade has to go to our famously taciturn president from Massachusetts,
Calvin Coolidge, who said, Jay-Z would later update this
for the 21st century noting, But anyway, during the 1920s, the
government helped business grow like gangbusters, largely by not regulating it much at all. This is known as
“laissez-faire” capitalism. Or “laissez-faire” capitalism if you’re good at speaking French. The Republican Party
dominated politics in the 1920s, with all the presidents elected in the decade being staunch conservative
Republicans. The federal government hewed to the policies favored by business lobbyists, including lower taxes on
personal income and business profits, and efforts to weaken the power of unions. Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and
Hoover stocked the boards of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission with men who shared their
pro-business views, shifting the country away from the economic regulation that had been favored by Progressives. And that was very good for the American economy, at least in the short run. The 1920s were also marked by quite a bit of government corruption, most of which can be pinned to the administration of Warren G. Harding. Now, Harding himself wasn’t terribly corrupt, but he picked terrible friends. They included Attorney General Harry Daugherty who accepted money to not prosecute criminals, and Interior Secretary Albert fall, who took half a million dollars from private business in exchange for leases to government oil reserves at Teapot Dome. Fall later became the first cabinet member ever to be convicted of a felony, but on the other hand, business, man! Productivity rose dramatically largely because older industry’s adopted Henry Ford’s assembly line techniques and newer industries like aviation, chemicals, and electronics grew up to provide Americans with new products and new jobs. During the 1920s annual production of cars tripled to 4.8 million, and automobile companies were gradually consolidated into the big three that we know today: Ford, Chrysler, and Harley-Davidson. What? General Motors. By 1929 half of all American families owned a car and thus began the American love affair with the automobile, which is also where love affairs were often consummated, which is why in the 1920s cars came to be known as Scootaloo pooping chariots. What’s that? They were called brothels on wheels? And the economy also grew because American corporations were extending their reach overseas, and American foreign investment was greater than that of any other country. The dollar replaced the pound as the most important currency for trade and by the end of the decade America was producing eighty-five percent of the world’s cars and forty percent of its overall manufactured goods. Stan can I get a Libertage? And companies turned out all kinds of labor-saving devices like vacuum cleaners, toasters, refrigerators, and not having to spend all day washing your clothes, or turning over your own toast like some kind of common or meant that Americans had more time for leisure. And this was provided by radios and baseball games boxing matches vacations dance crazes. I mean before Gangnam style there was the windy and the Charleston but probably the most significant leisure product was movies and I’m not just saying that because I’m staring into a camera. The American film industry moved out to Hollywood before World War one because land was cheap and plentiful all that sunshine meant that you could shoot outside all year round and it was close to everything: desert, mountains, ocean, plastic surgeons. And by 1925 the American film industry had eclipsed all of its competitors and become the greatest in the world, especially if you count by volume and not quality, and more and more people had money to go see those movies thanks to consumer debt. The widespread use of credit and lay away buying plans meant that it was acceptable to go into debt to maintain what came to be seen as the American standard of living and this was a huge change in attitude. These days we don’t even think of credit cards as debt, really. But they are. And that was a relatively new idea as was another feature of American life in the 20s that is still with us: celebrity. Opera singer Enrico Caruso has often been called the first modern celebrity but now he’s a lot less famous than Charlie Chaplin or Rudolph Valentino or Babe Ruth but probably the biggest celebrity of the decade was Charles Lindbergh whose claim to fame was flying across the Atlantic Ocean by himself without stopping although he did use an airplane which makes it slightly less impressive. Now Lindbergh wasn’t a truly contemporary celebrity in the sense of being famous for being famous, but he was a business more than a businessman. High culture also flourished. This was the age of the lost generation of American writers, many of whom lived and worked in Europe but America had its own version of Paris in New York. The decade of the 1920s saw continued migration of African American people from the South to cities in the nNorth, and Harlem became the capital of Black America. And speaking of migration, let us now migrated to the chair for the Mystery Document. The rules here are simple: I guess the author of the mystery document, I’m either right or I get shocked with the shock pen. Alright let’s see we got here. “If we must die would it not be like hogs hunted and penned in an inglorious spot, while round us bark the mad and hungry dogs, making their market are a curse a lot… Like men we’ll face the murderous, cowardly pack, pressed to the wall, dying but fight back.” Stan thank you for the poetry I appreciate that it’s not some obscure document from 18th century blah blah blah It’s Claude McKay Harlem Renaissance poet, the poem is called “If We Must Die.” Ah, it’s the only thing in the world I’m actually good at. Now I know this from the imagery alone, especially the line about “mad and hungry dogs” that would figuratively and literally make up the mobs at the lynchings, but the giveaway here is the ultimate sentiment that we will fight back. This was part of the spirit of the Harlem Renaissance which rejected stereotypes and prejudice and sought to celebrate African-American experience. Meanwhile, things for changing for women as well, as they found new ways to express autonomy. Flappers kept their hair and skirts short, smoked and drank illegally in public, and availed themselves of birth control. And marketers encouraged them to buy products like cigarettes christened torches of freedom by Edward Bernays. Liberation had its limits though; most women were still expected to marry, have children, and find their freedom at home through the use of washing machines, but the picture of prosperity is as usual more complicated than it at first appears. The fact that so many Americans were going into debt in order to pursue the American dream meant that if the economy faltered, and it did, there was going to be lots of trouble. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Prosperity in the 1920s wasn’t equally distributed through the population. Real industrial wages rose by a quarter between 1922 and 1929 but corporate profits rose at twice that rate. By 1929, one percent of the nation’s banks controlled fifty percent of the nation’s financial resources and the wealthiest five percent of Americans share of national income exceeded that of the bottom sixty percent. An estimated forty percent of Americans lived in poverty. Now many Americans celebrated big business, and Wall Street was often seen as heroic possibly because by 1920 about 1.5 million Americans owned some kind of stock, but big business also meant that smaller businesses disappeared. During the 1920s the number of manufacturing workers declined by 5%, the first time this class of workers had seen its numbers drop, but not the last. Now some of these jobs were made up for by new jobs in retail finance and education, but as early as the 1920s New England was beginning to see unemployment in deindustrialization as textile companies moved their operations to the south where labor was cheaper and working-class people still made up the majority of Americans and they often couldn’t afford these newfangled devices, like in 1930, seventy-five percent of american homes didn’t have a washing machine, and only forty percent of them had a radio. Farmers were even worse off many had prospered during World War One when the government subsidized farm prices in order to keep farms producing for the war effort, but when the subsidies ended, production didn’t subside, largely due to mechanization and increased use of fertilizer. Farmers incomes dropped steadily and many saw banks foreclose upon their property. For the first time in American history the number of farms declined during the 1920s. For farmers the Great Depression began early. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So in general the federal government did little to nothing to help farmers or workers. The Supreme Court was the only segment of the government that kept any progressive ideas alive as they began to craft a system of ideas that we call the jurisprudence of civil liberties. Now the court still voted to uphold convictions of left-wing critics of the government but gradually began to embrace the idea that people had the right to express dissonant views in what Oliver Wendell Holmes called the “Marketplace of ideas.” In Near vs. Minnesota, the Supreme Court struck down censorship of newspapers and by 1927 Justice Brandeis was writing that “Freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” But despite increased free speech and torches of liberty and flappers and the Harlem Renaissance the 1920s was in many ways a reactionary period in American history. For instance the decade saw the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in a new and improved form and by improved I mean much more terrible. Spurred on by the hyper patriotism that was fostered during World War One, the Klan denounced immigrants and Jews and Catholics as less than one hundred percent American, and by the mid 20s the Klan claimed more than 3 million members and it was the largest private organization right here in my home state of Indiana. And with more immigrants coming from Southern and Eastern Europe who were often Catholic and Jewish, White Protestants became more and more concerned about losing their dominant position in the social order. Spoiler alert: it turns out okay for you, White Protestants The first immigration restriction bill was passed in 1921, limiting the number of immigrants from Europe to 357,000. In 1924, a new immigration law dropped that number to 150,000 and established quotas based on national origin. The numbers of immigrants allowed from Southern and Eastern Europe were drastically reduced and Asians except for Filipinos were totally forbidden. The quota for Filipinos was set at 50 per year although they were still allowed to emigrate to Hawaii because their labor was needed there. There were no restrictions, however, on immigration from the Western Hemisphere because California’s large-scale farms were dependent upon seasonal laborers from Mexico. These immigration restrictions were also influenced by fear of radical anarchists and pseudo scientific ideas about race; whites were seen as scientifically superior to people of color and as President Coolidge himself declared when he signed the 1924 immigration law, “America must be kept American” Tell me Calvin Coolidge about how American you are. Are you Cherokee, or Cree, or Lakota? The 1920s also saw increased tension between science education in the United States and religious beliefs. The best known example is of course the trial of John Scopes in Tennessee in 1925. Scopes was tried for breaking the law against teaching evolution which he had been encouraged to do by the ACLU as a test case for freedom of speech. Scopes was prosecuted by William Jennings Bryan whom you will remember as having recently resigned as Secretary of State and who had become a leader of the Fundamentalist Movement. And Scopes was defended by Clarence Darrow, that famous defense attorney who contemporary defense attorneys always point to to argue that defense attorneys aren’t all scum. Scopes and Darrow actually lost the trial but the case drew national attention and ultimately led to evolution being taught in more American schools. The Scopes trial is often seen as a victory for free thinking and science and modernism, and I suppose it was, but for me it’s more a symbol of the contradictions of the 1920s. This is the decade that gave us mass consumer culture and celebrity worship, which are important and very complicated legacies. And it also saw the birth of modern conceptions of civil liberties. It was a period when tolerance became an important value, but at the same time it saw a rise in lynchings. Immigrants were necessary for the economic boom of the 1920s, but at the same time their numbers were restricted, as they were seen as a threat to traditional American value, and that raises a question that we’re still struggling with today: What are those values? I don’t mean that rhetorically let me know in comments. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Meredith Danko, the Associate Producer is Danica Johnson to show is written by my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer Rosianna Rojas and myself and our graphics team is Thought Cafe. I nailed that. Every week there’s a new caption for the Libertage. You can suggest your own in comments or ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thank you for watching Crash Course, If you enjoyed today’s episode make sure you subscribe. And as we say in my hometown: Don’t Forget to be Awesome.

Democratic Party Co-Hosts Women’s March In Dallas


BUNDLE UP. TEMPERATURES WILL BE AROUND 34 DEGREES. IT WILL FEEL BELOW FREEZING. ANOTHER WOMEN’S MARCH TAKES PLACE IN DALLAS TODAY, IT STARTS AT ST. PAUL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH. THIS FOLLOWS THE WOMEN’S MARCH IN DALLAS HELD YESTERDAY. THE MESSAGE IS WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT. IT WAS A SISTER MARCH TO THE ONE IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL. HERE’S WHAT ONE ORGANIZER HOPES. I HOPE THE ATTENDEES LEAVE HERE ENERGIZED AND READY TO CARRY THEIR VOICE PASSED TODAY.

POLL: Millennial Women Killing Republican Party


>>MILLENNIAL WOMEN ARE
LEAVING THE GOP IN DROVES. LET’S GET RIGHT TO THE STATS. THE AMOUNT OF MILLENNIAL MEN HAS GONE FROM 52 TO 49%, THE OTHER
WAY.>>FIRST LET ME NOTE THE BAD
NEWS, THE FACT THAT MILLENNIAL MEN HAVE SLIPPED A LITTLE BIT IS
DISCONCERTING. IT IS STILL A NICE SIZE
ADVANTAGE FOR DEMOCRATS. 49 TO 41 AT THIS POINT. USED TO BE A LITTLE BIT LARGER
THAN THAT. BUT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IS
THE SIZE OF THE LEAD AMONG WOMEN BECAUSE IT IS SO LARGE. USED TO BE BACK IN 2002, 54 TO
36. THAT IS ALMOST 20 POINTS. BUT IF YOU CAN HOLD MEN IN ALL
AGE GROUPS YOU CAN STILL SURVIVE AS THEY JUST DID IN 2016. NOW THAT THESE TRENDS ARE
AMPLIFIED AND CONTINUED TO MULTIPLY OVER TIME, THEY ARE IN
FOR A WORLD OF HURT. NOW MILLENNIAL WOMEN ARE 70 TO
23.>>THAT IS CRAZY.>>YOU CAN OVERCOME THAT LEAD
AMONG 50% OF THE POPULATION. MILLENNIAL WOMEN ARE NOT THE
MAJORITY WOMEN AT THIS POINT BUT THEY ARE COMING. THAT ARMY OF DEMOCRATIC WOMEN
ARE COMING IN A BIG WAY. THAT DOESN’T MEAN DEMOCRATS
SHOULD BE COMPLACENT. YOU HAVE TO EARN THEIR TRUST AND
CONTINUE EARNING THEIR TRUST. THEY ARE MAINLY REBELLING
AGAINST THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BUT DEMOCRATS HAVE THE
GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO ROOT FOR.>>THERE WAS AN OP-ED RECENTLY
THAT POINTED OUT ANOTHER LITTLE ASPECT OF THIS TO CLOSE THE
CIRCLE WHICH WAS WOMEN WHO IDENTIFY AS DEMOCRATS WERE
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE LIKELY TO SAY THEY WERE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN
TO ACTUALLY GO AND VOTE AND 2018 THAN THEIR PEERS WHO SAY THEY
ARE INDEPENDENT OR REPUBLICAN. IT IS A GROWING NUMBER OF
PEOPLE, OF WOMEN WHO SAY THEY ARE DEMOCRAT AND ARE EXTREMELY
LIKELY TO ACTUALLY PUT THAT NEW IDEOLOGICAL AFFILIATION INTO
PRACTICE AT THE POLLS.>>IT MAKES SENSE. IF YOU’RE A YOUNG WOMAN WHY
WOULD YOU BE FOR A REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT HAS POLICY POSITIONS
THAT LOOK TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD, THEY FIGHT AGAINST
EQUAL PAY, THEY TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO CONTROL YOUR OWN BODY
LET ALONE OTHER ISSUES LIKE BEING AGAINST LGBT RIGHTS WHICH
FOR MILLENNIALS SOUNDS INSANE. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. EVERY YEAR THAT MILLENNIALS
BECOME VOTING AGE IS ANOTHER YEAR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FADES
INTO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY. RIGHT NOW AS THEY CONTROL ALL
THE LEVELS, YOU CAN SAY YOU GUYS THAT CAN’T BE THE CASE BUT
THE REALITY IS THEY ARE ON THEIR LAST LEGS AND YOU WILL SEE
THEM IN ELECTIONS TO COME. WHEN PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY
MOTIVATED TO GO VOTE IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE.>>SO WHY ARE MEN GOING UP IN
TERMS OF REPUBLICAN AFFILIATION.>>LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE
POST GAME. TYTNETWORK.COM/JOIN. THAT IS A REALLY IMPORTANT TREND
AND I WANT TO DISCUSS IT FOR THE MEMBERS.