War on Women: Part III

"I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar," was one of the biggest hit songs in the 1970s from singer Helen Reddy. In the midst of a social upheaval that revolted against traditional female roles, it became the background anthem for protests against beauty pageants, bra burning demonstrations and the failed Equal Rights Amendment.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

[music]

GLENN: Such was the popular refrain from singer Helen Reddy, among others, in the '60s and '70s. I Am Woman was one of the biggest hits in 1971. For thousands of years, the roles of men and women had seemed to be pretty well defined and for the most part, generally accepted. Generally speaking, men were the hunter gatherers, and women were the nurturers. But society changed. And it took some time to adapt to that change. And as transitions can get, this one was occasionally rocky. There was a time in between when popular culture made it seem that the most important task a woman had was just to make a good cup of coffee for her man.

VOICE: Your coffee, sir.

VOICE: Thanks, beautiful.

VOICE: You're welcome.

VOICE: How can such a pretty wife make such bad coffee?

VOICE: I heard that.

VOICE: Judy, what brings you over?

VOICE: Oh, Mrs. Olson, Frank crabbed about my coffee again.

VOICE: Oh, coffee problems.

VOICE: It sure is. I can't make good coffee.

VOICE: Good coffee is no problem. You just use the coffee with better flavor, Folger's.

VOICE: Folger's coffee?

GLENN: And for the love of heaven, whatever you do, don't let the little lady drive.

VOICE: Depending on how you drive and your car's condition, you can get incredible mileage from the Goodyear custom-wide tread poly glass tire.

VOICE: I've got 32,000 miles on my tires.

VOICE: I've got 41,000 miles on my poly glass.

VOICE: But poly glass means more than mileage when your wife has to drive alone.

(music)

VOICE: When a woman is at the wheel, poly glass means more than mileage.

GLENN: In the midst of all the social upheaval over the roles of men and women, ads and attitudes like these just ignited the spark of social change that led to the feminist movement of the '60s and '70s. One of the most famous protests during the movement took place in Atlantic City. It happened during the Miss America Pageant in 1968.

VOICE: To the feminists, the annual television beauty pageants seemed a gross offense.

VOICE: Miss Illinois is Miss America.

(music)

VOICE: We are going to sing your song.

(music)

VOICE: Inside, one set of young women accepted the chauvinist baubles. Outside, others carried on with more consciousness raising.

GLENN: Women were everywhere, burning their bras and demanding equal rights.

VOICE: We threw bras and girdles and stockings, high high-heeled shoes and cosmetics into the trash can. The press loved it. And we learned very early on that the press liked crazy things, so let's use the press.

GLENN: As legendary and worldwide as the bra-burning event was, it is interesting that the actual bra burning never really happened.

VOICE: We didn't burn any bras. They would have happened if they had allowed us to have a fire.

VOICE: They struck the coverage they wanted, but at some risk to their reputation.

VOICE: For those who think that the Women's Liberation Movement is a joke, vaguely connected with burning bars and getting in the men-only bars, I disabuse you of that notion. It is about equal pay and equal opportunity in the job market.

GLENN: Protesters tossed their underwear into a large trash can, labeled The Freedom Trash Can. But without permits, the clothing was never burned. They're real rebels. The movement was definitely still making moves.

VOICE: In America, they started to burn their bras. And the women's movement had already begun. They thought, if they can do it, we have to do it in Holland.

GLENN: But the coverage wasn't always popular.

VOICE: Fifty years ago today, the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution gave women the right to vote. On this anniversary, a militant minority of women's liberationists was on the streets, across the country, to demand equal employment.

VOICE: It turned out, there really weren't a lot of would-be liberated women willing to stop their work for the day in New York. Early demonstrations tended to be small and the onlookers by no means were always sympathetic.

GLENN: It seemed that almost no one was opposed to women having equal opportunities for employment and compensation under equal circumstances. But with abortion on demand thrown in on top of it, along with many questions of equal access to all public bathroom facilities and the even more concerning prospect of women being drafted into the military service and placed on the front lines of battlefields, the ERA amendment became much, much tougher to sell to the American people.

William Buckley discussed some of these issues with ERA opponent Phyllis Schlafly.

VOICE: The state of Connecticut ratified the so-called Equal Rights Amendment. The proposed constitutional amendment passed overwhelmingly by the Senate and the House holds that, quote, equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

That doesn't sound particularly subversive. And I would therefore like to begin by asking Mrs. Schlafly to state her principal objection to the ERA.

VOICE: Well, it's a very innocuous wording of the amendment that is the reason why many people didn't realize in the beginning what unfortunate consequences it would have. But fortunately, the amending process calls for a full-blown debate in the state legislatures around the country, and this is where we find out some of the things that were not originally realized by many people who voted for it. We find, as we look into the matter, that ERA won't give women anything which they haven't already got or have a way of getting. But, on the other hand, it will take away from women some of the most important rights and bits and exemptions we now have.

VOICE: What would be an example of that?

VOICE: Well, a great, glaring example on which there is full agreement between both the proponents and opponents is the matter of the draft. Women are exempt from the draft. Selective service as only young men of age 18 have to register. But the Equal Rights Amendment will positively make women subject to the draft and on an equal basis with men. Nor could you have a system whereby the women would get all the nice easy desk jobs and the men get all the fighting jobs. It would have to be equal across-the-board, in combat, on warships, and all up and down the line.

GLENN: Vice chairman Anne Scott.

VOICE: There's no question that if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed, that women would become subject to the draft. However, I think that we have a situation now where the draft is going by the boards. And furthermore, I think the question is not one of the rights of women here, but it is a question of the draft. Clearly, no sane parent would want to see either child, either a son or a daughter subject to the draft.

But if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, then women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship. It's not simply a question of being subject to the draft, it is also a question of denial of opportunity. There are many situations in which women could benefit from the draft. They already are in the service.

VOICE: And become a war hero.

VOICE: Why not?

GLENN: No matter how enlightened society was or wasn't during the 1970s, the idea of America's daughters being drafted into military service and placed on the front lines of a combat situation just didn't sit well for most Americans.

Despite some impressive and possibly unlikely supporter over the years, including the Republican president of the United States in 1975 --

VOICE: Women's liberation is truly the liberation of all people. Let 1975, international women's year, be the year that ERA is ratified.

GLENN: Obviously, 1975 was not that year. Even with Gerald Ford's endorsement. Nor was any other year.

This compromise is an abomination

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Three decades ago, "The Art of the Deal" made Donald Trump a household name. A lot has happened since then. But you can trace many of Trump's actions back to that book.

Art of the Deal:

In the end, you're measured not by how much you undertake but by what you finally accomplish.

People laughed when he announced that he was running for President. And I mean that literally. Remember the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner when Obama roasted Trump, viciously, mocking the very idea that Trump could ever be President. Now, he's President.

You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.

This empire-building is a mark of Trump.

RELATED: 'Arrogant fool' Jim Acosta exposed MSM's dishonest border agenda — again.

The most recent example is the border wall. Yesterday, congress reached a compromise on funding for the border wall. Weeks of tense back-and-forth built up to that moment. At times, it seemed like neither side would budge. Trump stuck to his guns, the government shut down, Trump refused to budge, then, miraculously, the lights came back on again. The result was a compromise. Or at least that's how it appeared.

But really, Trump got what he wanted -- exactly what he wanted. He used the techniques he wrote about in The Art of the Deal:

My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I'm after.

From the start, he demanded $5.7 billion for construction of a border wall. It was a months' long tug-of-war that eventually resulted in yesterday's legislation, which would dedicate $1.4 billion. It would appear that that was what he was after all along. Moments before the vote, he did some last-minute pushing. A national emergency declaration, and suddenly the number is $8 billion.

Art of the Deal:

People think I'm a gambler. I've never gambled in my life. To me, a gambler is someone who plays slot machines. I prefer to own slot machines. It's a very good business being the house.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, Senate passed the legislation 83-16, and the House followed with 300-128. Today, Trump will sign the bill.

It's not even fair to call that a deal, really. A deal is what happens when you go to a car dealership, fully ready to buy a car, and the salesman says the right things. What Trump did is more like a car dealer selling an entire row of cars to someone who doesn't even have a licence. When Trump started, Democrats wouldn't even consider a wall, let alone pay for it.

Art of the Deal:

The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration—and a very effective form of promotion.

He started the wall on a chant, "Build the wall!" until he got what he wanted. He maneuvered like Don Draper, selling people something that they didn't even know they wanted, and convincing them that it is exactly what they've always needed.

As the nation soaks in the victory of the recent passing of the historic First Step Act, there are Congressmen who haven't stopped working to solve additional problems with the criminal justice system. Because while the Act was impactful, leading to the well-deserved early release of many incarcerated individuals, it didn't go far enough. That's why four Congressmen have joined forces to reintroduce the Justice Safety Valve Act—legislation that would grant judges judicial discretion when determining appropriate sentencing.

There's a real need for this legislation since it's no secret that lawmakers don't always get it right. They may pass laws with good intentions, but unintended consequences often prevail. For example, there was a time when the nation believed the best way to penalize lawbreakers was to be tough on crime, leading to sweeping mandatory minimum sentencing laws implemented both nationally and statewide.

RELATED: If Trump can support criminal justice reform, so can everyone else

Only in recent years have governments learned that these sentences aren't good policy for the defendant or even the public. Mandatory minimum sentences are often overly harsh, don't act as a public deterrent for crime, and are extremely costly to taxpayers. These laws tie judges' hands, preventing them from using their knowledge and understanding of the law to make case relevant decisions.

Because legislation surrounding criminal law is often very touchy and difficult to change (especially on the federal level, where bills can take multiple years to pass) mandatory minimum sentences are far from being done away with—despite the data-driven discoveries of their downfalls. But in order to solve the problems inherent within all of the different laws imposing sentencing lengths, Congress needs to pass the Justice Safety Valve Act now. Ensuring its passing would allow judges to use discretion while sentencing, rather than forcing them to continue issuing indiscriminate sentences no matter the unique facts of the case.

Rather than take years to go back and try to fix every single mandatory minimum law that has been federally passed, moving this single piece of legislation forward is the best way to ensure judges can apply their judgment in every appropriate case.

When someone is facing numerous charges from a single incident, mandatory minimum sentencing laws stack atop one another, resulting in an extremely lengthy sentence that may not be just. Such high sentences may even be violations of an individual's eighth amendment rights, what with the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. It's exactly what happened with Weldon Angelos.

In Salt Lake City in 2002, Weldon sold half a pound of marijuana to federal agents on two separate occasions. Unbeknownst to Weldon, the police had targeted him because they suspected he was a part of a gang and trafficking operation. They were oh-so-wrong. Weldon had never sold marijuana before and only did this time because he was pressured by the agents to find marijuana for them. He figured a couple lowkey sales could help out his family's financial situation. But Weldon was caught and sentenced to a mandatory 55 years in prison. This massive sentence is clearly unjust for a first time, non-violent crime, and even the Judge, Paul Cassell, agreed. Judge Cassell did everything he could to reduce the sentence, but, due to federal law, it wasn't much.

The nation is facing an over-criminalization problem that costs taxpayers millions and amounts to the foolish eradication of individual liberties.

In cases like Weldon's, a safety valve for discretionary power is much needed. Judges need the ability to issue sentences below the mandatory minimums, depending on mitigating factors such as mental health, provocation, or physical illness. That's what this new bill would allow for. Critics may argue that this gives judges too much power, but under the bill, judges must first make a finding on why it's necessary to sentence below the mandatory minimum. Then, they must write a clear statement explaining their decision.

Judges are unlikely to risk their careers to allow dangerous criminals an early release. If something happens after an offender is released early, the political pressure is back on the judge who issued the shorter sentence—and no one wants that kind of negative attention. In order to avoid risky situations like this, they'd use their discretion very cautiously, upholding the oath they took to promote justice in every case.

The nation is facing an overcriminalization problem that costs taxpayers millions and amounts to the foolish eradication of individual liberties. Mandatory minimums have exacerbated this problem, and it's time for that to stop. Congresswomen and men have the opportunity to help solve this looming problem by passing the Justice Safety Valve Act to untie the hands of judges and restore justice in individual sentences.

Molly Davis is a policy analyst at Libertas Institute, a free market think tank in Utah. She's a writer for Young Voices, and her work has previously appeared in The Hill, TownHall.com, and The Washington Examiner.

New gadget for couples in 'the mood' lets a button do the talking

Photo by Matt Nelson on Unsplash

Just in time for Valentine's Day, there's a new romantic gadget for couples that is sure to make sparks fly. For those with their minds in the gutter, I'm not talking about those kinds of gadgets. I'm talking about a brilliant new device for the home called "LoveSync."

This is real — it's a simple pair of buttons for busy, modern couples who have plenty of time for social media and Netflix, but can't quite squeeze in time to talk about their... uh... special relationship.

Here's how it works. Each partner has their own individual LoveSync button. Whenever the mood strikes one partner, all they have to do is press their own button. That sets their button aglow for a certain period of time. If, during that time window, their partner also presses their own button, then both buttons light up in a swirling green pattern to signal that love has "synced"...and it's go time.

According to the makers of LoveSync, this device will "Take the Luck out of Getting Lucky." It brings a whole new meaning to "pushing each other's buttons." It's an ideal gift to tell your significant other "I care," without actually having to care, or talk about icky things like feelings.

If you find your significant other is already on the couch binge-watching The Bachelor, no problem! You can conveniently slink back to your button and hold it in for four seconds to cancel the desire. No harm, no foul! Live to fight another day.

Have fun explaining those buttons to inquiring children.

No word yet on whether LoveSync can also order wine, light candles or play Barry White. Maybe that's in the works for LoveSync 2.0.

Of course, LoveSync does have some pitfalls. Cats and toddlers love a good button. That'll be a fun conversation — "Honey, who keeps canceling my mood submissions?" And have fun explaining those buttons to inquiring children. "Yeah, kids, that button just controls the lawn sprinklers. No big deal."

If you've been dialing it in for years on Valentine's Day with flowers and those crappy boxes of chocolate, now you can literally dial it in. With a button.

Good luck with that.