upworthy

government

More

Trevor Noah's hot take on abortion and gun control from 2015​ (sadly) still holds up

Noah was still a new host for "The Daily Show," and knocked it out of the park with his signature wit we would all come to love.

Daily Show/Youtube

Trevor Noah as a host on 'The Daily Show'

A previous episode of "The Daily Show" addressed two hot-button issues at the same time: abortion and gun control.

It was one of the earliest tests for new host Trevor Noah, and he pretty much knocked this one out of the park. The segment began with a discussion about the pro-life movement's laser focus on making completely legal abortions really, really hard to get.

Noah started with the movement's push to defund Planned Parenthood on what turned out to be deceptive, altered, and debunked videos. And even he had to admit, pro-lifers are pretty great at what they do, given that they were able to get Congress to hold hearings based on ... nothing, really.


Of course, not all people in the pro-life movement are against gun control, and not all people who are against gun control are pro-life, but there is a certain significant — and confusing — overlap on those two issues that is worth investigating.

So Noah turned his attention to the mass shooting in Oregon — the 294th of the year — and how we as a country are once again discussing gun control.

If pro-lifers are so concerned about the preservation of all lives, Noah wonders, then why don't they support common-sense gun control measures?

There's no need for doctored videos. Gun violence statistics exist (and they're terrifying). Imagine if the pro-life movement rallied behind that?

Noah then brilliantly compared reactions from two "pro-life" presidential candidates on the Oregon shooting and on abortion.

First up was Jeb Bush on what happened in Oregon. He urged against reactionary gun legislation. "Stuff happens," he said.

But compare that to his recent comments on abortion — which is, again, totally legal:

Now that's a response fitting for a mass shooting.

Noah looked over to candidate Carly Fiorina for her thoughts on the Oregon shooting. Similar to Bush, Fiorina cautioned against taking any action on gun control until we know more about what happened.

Now compare that to her comments on abortion:

It's not clear whether pro-lifers are waiting for an even 300 mass shootings in 2015 — which, at the pace we're going, should be sometime in the next month or so — before taking action. But in the meantime, it's really hard to see the "pro-life" rhetoric as anything more than hypocrisy.

In closing, Noah posed this to pro-lifers: If you actually care about lives, do something about guns.

Redirect the energy, lobbying, and rhetoric spent on fighting a more than 40-year-old Supreme Court decision toward sensible steps to curb gun violence.

"They just need to have a superhero's dedication to life," Noah says. "Because right now, they're more like comic book collectors: Human life only matters until you take it out of the package, and then there's nothing left."

Watch the complete segment in the video below.

This article originally appeared on 10.06.15


Identity

Baseball legend Jackie Robinson once sent a telegram to the White House for equal rights

A brilliant example of what can happen when you use your voice.

Image by Bob Sandberg/Library of Congress. (cropped)

Professional baseball player Jackie Robinson swings a bat in 1954.

Jackie Robinson was an amazing baseball player with serious conviction.

He had the same level of conviction in his demand for real, substantive legislation about civil rights.

He was the first black player, EVER, in baseball's major leagues in America — he would know.


Real change doesn't happen all at once. But we get there faster when voters speak up and say they expect more from our elected leaders.

Take the slow path of civil rights in America. Voters like Robinson helped push for real equality when he sent this telegram to The White House and President Eisenhower in 1957:

Image via National Archives.


In the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling stating that segregated schools were not cutting it, the 1957 Civil Rights Act began taking shape under Eisenhower.Eisenhower signed the half-loafy 1957 bill, but that was just the beginning of a nation setting itself up to specifically make rights more available to everyone (and to make denying people those rights subject to some real penalties).The 1957 act was the first civil rights legislation passed since the mid-1800s, but it was was mostly lip service; it didn't do enough to tackle the huge problem of racism and prejudice in America.

There's no doubt about it, Robinson was hardcore. He did not sleep on the quest for equality.

You gotta admire athletes and people in the public eye who stick their neck out and use their public voice for equality!

And the fact is, they did have to wait a little bit longer. In 1960, another civil rights act passed. Then again in 1964, another civil rights act. We're talking two separate presidents to get America at least starting to get in front of that whole racism thing. And we're still working.

Robinson may not have gotten what he wanted right off the bat, but demanding more and not giving up hope was vital to keep the momentum going and build real change.

Bit by bit, we're building a more equal country.

Think of marriage equality. We weren't getting all wins in the court system over the years, but each fight helped to change public opinion until polls started showing that the majority of Americans believed in marriage equality. And then, finally, that Supreme Court ruling in June 2015.

Conviction and equality win, and so does love.

This article originally appeared on 09.21.15

Education

Why the US presidential order of succession is the way it is

An entertaining-yet-informative video explains the somewhat haphazard way we determined who takes over if the president dies.

Who decided how the presidential order of succession should go and why?

Unless you've taken AP Government and Politics or AP Comparative Government—or unless you've binged-watched "Designated Survivor"—you may not know the full order of succession if a U.S. president dies in office. You may not care, either, but we live in an unpredictable world and the question of who runs the United States in the event of an unprecedented tragedy is a legitimate one.

We all know that the vice president takes over if the president kicks it, but after that, the order seems somewhat arbitrary. The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives followed by the president pro tempore of the Senate and then all the Cabinet secretaries? And who decided what order the secretaries would go in?

One might assume that there was a solid, well-thought-out reason for the specific order of succession, but…well…no, not really. The order has been built over time through various incomplete acts and the 25th amendment, and as video creator CPG Grey points out, it's mostly been a result of "historical happenstance."


The entertaining-yet-informative video begins by explaining how the US presidency is the deadliest job in America, with eight out of 45 presidents so far dying while in office. (Four of natural causes and four via assassination, in case you're wondering.) Then it explains the circumstances under which the office and/or the duties and powers of the presidency (which aren't exactly the same thing) might be transferred from the president to another person.

Then we get into the nitty-gritty of who takes over in what order and the surprising lack of clarity about how the full succession system would work if it ever got tested. Ever heard of "bumping"? It's a wild what-if scenario that turns the American presidency into a makeshift game of musical chairs, which is a little goofy and a little terrifying to think about.

The whole thing is quite a fascinating journey through American history. Watch CPG Grey's explainer in "The Most Deadly Job in America":