In March of this year, we marked the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day. While we should celebrate the significant progress in the last 100 years, we must remember that in too many societies, women are second class citizens, denied their fundamental rights. 1. I protested for equal rights for minorities in '64 (and got gassed and clubbed). 2. Starting in '65, I actively participated in the anti-war movement (and got gassed and clubbed). 3. I campaigned for equal rights for women starting in '68 (and got gassed). I have personally observed Washington D.C. It is fascinating to me that our government preaches restraint against protesters, to foreign leaders currently under siege, in light of the lack of restraint I have witnessed here in my lifetime. And of course there was the Kent State massacre and a less publicized killing of a couple of black students on another campus that same year. Is anyone besides me afraid of the police and National Guard? 1. Though racial discrimination was outlawed in 1964 (WOOT!), I believe we still harbor the same number of racists.
2. And if we did ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, and the law did prohibit discrimination against women, I believe we'd still harbor the same number of misogynists. 3. And the war machine marches on, killing and maiming our sons and daughters by the thousands. Laws don't change men, so I question myself: https://5d9bbc65cf9e0.site123.me/ Why have I used so much energy in my life working to change laws? I'm taking a different tack. I'm no longer down with pounding the pavement or getting gassed or clubbed to accomplish social change. Younger folks need to carry that torch. Major kudos to the Occupy Wall Street folks. I will work to change people one person at a time. That's my comfort zone now. To heck with the laws. If people weren't racist, we wouldn't need a law against discrimination. If men weren't idiots, we wouldn't need laws protecting women. It will take a multi-generational re-education of the masses to achieve any real social progress here in the USA. 1. Parents, model tolerance for your children. 2. Men, model sensitivity for your sons. 3. Women, value yourselves. Demand reasonable behavior from your men, then your daughters will pass on that legacy. Until women have equal rights under the law -- AND IN THE MINDS OF MEN -- we cannot call ourselves civilized. Author's Bio: I am a retired hypnotherapist, author, inventor, and club racquetball pro. Please Register or Login to post new comment. Top Tips For Ensuring Your Child’s Nutrition Is Tip Top! It's Time to Shine!
However, the rules of the Senate still granted authority to the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President, to use his discretion to bring to an end long, dilatory speeches and to disallow meaningless motions. In fact, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr each used this power during their terms as Vice President. As the years went by this power was viewed suspiciously as one that could potentially be abused. An incident in 1825 caused the Senate to revise their rules. Vice President Calhoun allowed Senator Randolph to ramble on daily over a three month period about irrelevant subjects, mostly personal attacks against President John Quincy Adams. Since Calhoun also did not like Adams he refused to exercise his power to bring Randolphs remarks to a close. In 1828 the Senate revised their rules by requiring that all debate must be relevant to the question, but they did not eliminate the power of the presiding officer to limit debate. Thus it stood until 1917 when Senate Rule 22 was adopted at the urging of President Wilson.
The rule, which became known as the cloture rule, permitted the ending of debate on an issue with a two-thirds majority vote. However, since a two-thirds majority was difficult to obtain, the use of the real filibuster increased. There are many famous instances and interesting stories regarding filibusters in the Senate over the next 50 years. The advantage to this type of procedural filibuster is that other business of the Senate can be commenced without the delays and embarrassments of a real filibuster being necessary to remove the issue from further consideration. The disadvantage of this procedure is that it can potentially be abused. As a means to help prevent the abuse of the procedural filibuster, the majority leader retains the authority to force the minority to prove that they actually have the necessary votes to prevent cloture and to perform a real filibuster. Since 1975 the procedural filibuster has been used successfully many times and has not been challenged. It is a powerful tool and one that is unique to our American political system.