You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 61

PLAYS: 11

(LBJ at The UN - selling The Great Society was one thing - Selling Vietnam was something else)

When President Johnson addressed the United Nations General Assembly on the occasion of its 20th anniversary in June 1965, he had very little trouble selling his concept of The Great Society to the rest of the world. It was when the subject of Vietnam and Southeast Asia came up that ears suddenly turned deaf and support dwindled. Support for the war was rapidly fading in the U.S. and protests were mounting in intensity on an almost daily basis as the war escalated to no seeming end.

So it was with mixed results that President Johnson made his case to the world body.

LBJ: “ We in this country are committing ourselves to great tasks in our own Great Society. We’re committed to narrowing the gap between promise and performance. Between equality and law and equality in fact. Between opportunity for the numerous well to do and the still too numerous poor. Between education for the successful and education for all of the people. It is no longer a community or a nation or a continent. But a whole generation of mankind for whom our promises must be kept and kept within the next two decades. And if those promises are not kept, it will be less and less possible to keep them for any. And that is why, on this anniversary I would call upon all member nations to rededicate themselves to wage together an international war on poverty.

War on Poverty sounded good - War in Southeast Asia - not good.

From "Jimmy Carter: Man From Plains" (2007)

The Man From Plains makes a startling announcement:

Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.

I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

Read on...

You know, Jimmy Carter gets such an unfair rap in this country over his presidency, but this is my definition of a brave human being--taking a stand over what is right and moral not for any political calculation, but because it's right and moral.

I only wish more people would look in their heart and make the same kind of stand--one that champions equality and harmony instead of divisiveness and oppression.

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1361)

PLAYS: (2959)

President Obama gave a great speech yesterdat that was well received by the Notre Dame campus. The movement against a woman's right to live her life was the focal point for the pro-birthers, but Obama handled it with his charm and wit. I do not like the way the pro-choice movement has been portrayed, nor do I like the way the Democratic Party treats the pro-life movement, but Obama handled the speech at the Notre Dame commencement well. I suppoose it's the best we could hope for.

I do not agree with a lot of what's been coming out of the Beltway on this issue and many others, but the whining over this speech was ridiculous. The leader of the nation suddenly is not supposed to give a speech at Notre Dame because ... ?

Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (230)

PLAY (103)

Where did Michelle Bernard come from, and why on earth would anyone ask her opinion on the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which President Obama signed into law last week?

The first question is easier to answer. Bernard is President of the deceptively-named Independent Women's Forum, a thinktank that is neither "Independent" (Prominent members include Kate O'Beirne, Nancy Pfotenhauer, Lynne Cheney and the Podhoretz boys' wife and mother, Midge Decter. Funding comes from organizations like the Castle Rock Foundation and the Scaife Foundation. Sound independent to you?) nor particularly interested in furthering the welfare of women. In fact, some of their declared stances are against gender equality, like Title IX and the Violence Against Women Act. A curious case of self-loathing that must be given an inordinate amount of airtime, don't you think?

And who better to ask to speak on monopolize a segment on a bill that simply gives women the right to sue if they discover--years after they've been hired--that they have been working for less money for the same job than their male counterparts, as Lilly Ledbetter discovered. Naturally, Bernard and the IWF do not support the Ledbetter Act. How dare women think they should be entitled to equality, those silly little things?

What happened is…the case was overturned at the Supreme Court on a technicality. Instead of being forced to bring a lawsuit that alleges discrimination within a 100 days…180 days, women now have a longer period of time to do that. The problem with the legislation that was signed yesterday is we don’t know what the unintended consequences are going to be. Number one, it tells women that you’re a victim. Number two, we don’t know what the burdens are going to be that are going to be put on employers. Will employers all of the sudden say if I…maybe I should hire less women…fewer women in the workplace because they might sue me 20, 30, 40 years from now. Insurance is going to go up. What is the negative impact that this could possibly have on women, and for that reason, the Independent Women’s Forum and the Independent Women’s Voice does not think that this is a great day in America for women.

Holy cow, my blood pressure is rising just re-typing that drivel. First, it teaches women to be victims? Once again the wrong-headedness of conservative logic rears its ugly head. This law now acknowledges women who have already been victimized by sexist employers and cheated out of fair wages. Those unexpected consequences, Michelle, will be employers--those ones afraid of lawsuits 20, 30, 40 years from now (which you realize means they have been cheating their female employees out of fair wages for that time)--actually abiding by the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Chris Matthews, bless his clueless little heart, confuses issues by getting into an area that Bernard feels more comfortable--the issue of fair pay. As far as Bernard is concerned, anyone who goes into female-dominated professions like teaching or nursing should just suck it up, because that revered "free market" has spoken and their jobs just don't merit higher wages. I'm completely serious and she's seriously deranged.

Continue reading »

A video in support of The Alternative Invocation blogswarm.

PS. The Weblog Awards voting has started. In an embarrassment of riches, Crooks and Liars is competing with its own writers David Neiwert (Orcinus) and Blue Gal (Blue Gal) for Best Liberal Blog. Our own Susie Madrak (Suburban Guerrilla) is up for Best Midsize Blog, and regular C&L contributor Driftglass is up for Best Individual Blogger. You can vote once in each category every 24 hours. Open thread below...

(full disclosure: I proudly work for the Courage Campaign, a No on 8 coalition member)

You guys are amazing! Between C&L readers giving via my post Thursday and kossacks from kos's post over $34,000 has come into the No on Prop 8 campaign to preserve equality for all.

The blogosphere is stepping up for marriage equality in California in a big way and it could not come at a more important time. That is especially true with the great news from the Connecticut Supreme Court on marriage equality today. Losing here in CA would just embolden the right in CT to try and take away rights there. We can't let that happen.

The Yes on 8 campaign honestly surprised us with the strength of their fundraising. For a while, we weren't quite sure how much they were up on us, because they broke the Secretary of State's reporting system. Their report was too large for it to handle. The reporting system is fixed, but the numbers are still jaw-dropping.

They have raised $24.3 million to our $15.4 million.

A lot of that has come in from small donors. LAT:

But the "Yes on 8" campaign also is particularly successful at mining small donors. It raised $4.5 million in increments of less than $1,000, and $8.6 million in donations of less than $10,000. That works out to about 46% of its money.

We are $34,000 closer to matching them thanks to the netroots response in the last 24 hours. But we still need your help.

The No on 8 campaign is fighting the right's lies with the new ad, just released yesterday. We need your help to get the word out to voters about their lies. They are flooding the airwaves and we need to answer back. That takes money. So, give what you can. Remember, ballot campaigns in California have no contribution limits. Large and small donations add up and -- to get our message out and win this battle for equal rights -- we need those donations in a big way ASAP.

(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)

For a while, the fight to keep equal marriage rights in California seemed to be humming along just fine. The polls were looking good, the other side had a ridiculous field strategy (knocking on doors without lists) and they were so incompetent that their big day of action had to be canceled, because their million lawn signs never arrived from their outsourcer in China.

But things have changed. The two most recent polls taken after "Yes on 8" TV ads hit the airwaves show us behind and them surging. And here is the really bad news: their TV ads are working and we don't have the cash to match their ad buys. EdgeBoston:

Earlier polls had shown Proposition 8, which would eradicate the right for same-sex couples to marry in California, trailing by about 5 percentage points. This week, a Lake Research poll paid for by the campaign of 1,051 likely voters showed the proposition winning, with 47 percent saying they supported the measure and 43 percent saying no. The polling period was Sept. 29-Oct. 2. That finding is reinforced by a SurveyUSA poll of 670 likely voters showing the proposition winning 47 percent to 42 percent. That poll was taken Saturday and Sunday.

They have simply seen an unprecedented surge in donations, mostly from Mormons. LAT:

Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on 8, said he wanted to be able to "match [opponents] dollar for dollar. If we don't get there, voters won't hear our messages."

Smith also said his forces are being outspent in part because of a surge in contributions from Mormon Church members.

"I don't think we have ever seen a single religion in the state . . . so significantly participate in one political campaign," Smith said.

Right now we are down anywhere between $7-10 million dollars to the Mormons and others. They are out-raising us and it is hurting us in the polls.

Here is the deal: we need donations, volunteers and help spreading the word to vote No on Prop 8.

If you have money you can contribute, please give to the campaign. If you can volunteer, contact the campaign or show up at an office and they will put you to work talking to voters.

The one thing just about everyone can do is talk to their friends and family members that live in California about voting No on Prop 8. To that end, the Courage Campaign has created the above video called "Gender Auditors". It's a "keep the government out of your pants" message, a libertarian argument, if you will, for voting "No on Prop 8".

Pass around the link. Use it as an icebreaker to make sure your friends and family know to vote No on Prop. 8.

We can win this race, but we need everyone's help.