I loved finding this article when it was first published in 2008. As a young woman who has been participating in and fighting to be respected in my daily life (aren’t we all), academia, my job, my living room full of friends, parties, comment sections in articles, my relationships with family and friends, etc., this is my experience. without a doubt. it is so pervasive an experience to be belittled by men, ignored, talked over, and patronized that it is almost not worth bringing up. i have always lived in a very progressive, politically active community. the worst offenders have been men who seek to explain to me how oppression works, how politics work, how they are the best activist and most cultured and most aware. really–tell me more–and take up all of the space in the conversation to tell us all what you think. the source of the problem is that men are raised in a culture that tells them we are all dying to hear what they have to say about everything. men are not raised to listen. and just so you know, while many women are listening to your constant belittling, we are rolling our eyes. when men behave in this way, it never surprises us. every woman shares this experience. women in my life have more than once made their way through an experience like this, looked over at me, rolled their eyes, and made a mocking gesture of a man jerking off. it’s shorthand for solnit’s analysis, and it is understood immediately by any woman.
So I don’t think a large % of men spontaneously desire to patronise women. I think the effect is more that a large % of women don’t value their own opinion enough and are taught the tactic of deferral of authority.
The historian Henry Steele Commager expressed a similar view in an article in the New York Review of Books, October 1972. Comparing the U.S. war in Vietnam to the Confederacy’s war to preserve slavery and Germany’s war of aggression in World War II, he wrote, “Why do we find it so hard to accept this elementary lesson of history, that some wars are so deeply immoral that they must be lost, that the war in Vietnam is one of these wars, and that those who resist it are the truest patriots.” Cited in Neil Jumonville, Henry Steele Commager: Midcentury Liberalism and the History of the Present (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), p. 177. Of course, the peace movement’s quest was to prevent the war and stop the war, irrespective of American victory or defeat.
THE USA PATRIOT ACT OF 2001
The USA PATRIOT is an act of United States congress that was assented into law on October 26, 2001. It is an acronym that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. It represents the US government’s primary legislative response to terrorist attacks of September 11th. This Act focused on significant reduction in restrictions in law enforcement agencies’ collecting of intelligence within the united states; expanding the secretary of the treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, specifically those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadening the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in keeping in custody and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism- related acts.
The law which governs the material support of terrorism is contentious causing an infringement of freedom of association. The Humanitarian Law Project, objected to the provision prohibiting expert advice and assistance to terrorists and filed a suit against the U.S. government to have it declared unconstitutional. They succeeded, and a Federal Court found that the law was vague enough to cause a reasonable person to guess whether they were breaking the law or not. Thus they found it violated the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, and struck it down
One of the biggest controversies involved the use of National Security Letters by the FBI to allow them to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order. In November 2005, it was reported that the FBI had issued so many National Security Letters that they had obtained one million financial, credit, employment and health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies.
The constitutionality of National security letters was challenged in court in April 2004; it was argued that the National Security Letters violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the USA PATRIOT Act 2001 failed to give an outline of any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could oppose the letter in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the letter could not challenge it in court it was agreed that it was unconstitutional. Congress later tried to reinstitute this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not do away with the non-disclosure provision the Federal court again found National security letters to be unconstitutional for they prohibited courts from engaging in significant judicial review.
The Patriot Act in a nutshell. Associated Press Retrieved from:
For the sake of peace, we have made concessions. But the more conciliatory we are, the more aggressive the French colonists become. They are determined to reconquer our country. No! We would rather sacrifice everything. We are determined not to lose our country and not be enslaved. Dear compatriots, we must rise up. Male and female, old and young, regardless of religion, political party, ethnicity, all Vietnamese must rise up to fight French colonialism and to save the fatherland.
"Patriot Act Essay". Anti Essays. 6 Nov. 2017
This is the reason Gen-X women date younger men. We’re the most educated of all generations, but older men still talk down to us as if we were idiots. It’s worth dating a less stable younger guy just to avoid the patronizing lectures from the older guys. I have 2 graduate degrees and a membership card in MENSA. I don’t need a dreary “mansplanation” of anything. :)
Your search returned over 400 essays for "usa patriot act"
Critics of the war might offer a different set of goals: (1) beyond thanking veterans, to discuss whether the war itself was necessary or honorable; (2) in regard to the Armed Forces, to examine the debilitating effects of U.S. aerial assaults, ground operations, and counterinsurgency doctrine, especially on civilians; (3) on the home front, to recognize the contributions of those who opposed the war as patriotic and honorable; (4) with respect to science and technology, to examine the environmental and human devastation wrought by high-tech weaponry and poisons such as Agent Orange, and to reassess the slavish dependence on statistical benchmarks that obscured the inhumanity of the war; and (5) to recognize that America’s most important allies did not support the war and that the United Nations and other nations strongly advised against it. Such goals would likely produce sobering lessons that would strengthen efforts to prevent future wars.