SOTU

I can see on Facebook that everyone, EVERYONE, got RA except me. Cool. This is what happens when you speak your mind in class and your teacher doesn’t agree with you. Cool. Real cool.

But at the same time, I get to live with 5 of my best friends again in a super sweet loft suite (which I flawlessly landed us). So I guess that certainly has it’s benefits.

And financial aid decided to not be as retarded this year, which is always a plus.

And in 40 minutes, I will be on my way to one of the most dangerous countries in the world for a week of leadership building. As weird as it sounds, I could not be more excited!

pbsthisdayinhistory:

July 9, 1868: The 14th Amendment is Adopted

On this day in 1868, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified.  It extended citizenship and its benefits to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” regardless of their race or gender, although it took nearly 100 years for this principle to be enforced.

Learn more about the 14th Amendment with Constitution USA with Peter Sagal

This is why I study both political science and history. To understand how adoptions like this one occurred and how it influenced history and how those decisions affect people today. This is another reason why I ultimately would like to go into constitutional law.

As Gerald N. Rosenberg pointed out in The Hollow Hope, the Courts do not have the power to enforce the principle alone. There are a couple other cases that could be cited, like Reynolds v. SimsCraig v. BorenUnited States v. WindsorReed v. Reed and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (if i can cite all of these, then this is clearly my calling). All branches of government need to work together to make sure people are treated equally on the basis of race and gender. 

humansofnewyork:

"People confuse the source of their happiness. They become temporarily happy when they get a new car, or a new house, or a new marriage. And they think that they are suddenly happy because of this new thing in their life. In reality, they are happy because for a brief moment, they are without desire. But then soon another desire comes along. And the search continues."

Subject matter = disturbing. Music = beautiful

pandrea-flamingos:

I don’t normally rant, but scenes like this is why I love Mad Men. There is something the writers of this show are pointing out about misogyny that speaks volumes to me (especially living on a college campus and overhearing not so different conversations).

First, it points out rape culture, “you have to give them an excuse. That’s what I always say,” and if you didn’t know a stinger is a kind of drink. So basically they are talking about how they get girls drunk to then exploit their drunken state, a common strategy of rapist.

Second, the WAY they talk about sex and women is what’s hateful, not that they talk about sex and women. I think it’s important to point of Don’s imperfections (as we all know he is no hero nor feminist) and his reaction, as I interpret it, is that he takes issue with these two strangers on the elevator talking about sex with a woman present. He tolerated it before the woman was in the elevator. He takes off the man’s hat because he is not being a gentlemen in front of the lady. To him, what they are saying is INAPPROPRIATE not wrong. 

This scene automatically made me think about the distinctions between how you hear men talk about women and sex and how you hear women talk about men and sex (not ALL men and not ALL women its a generalization deal with it). There is a way to talk about sex and even your own sexual encounters without belittling the person you were intimate with. There is no sense of mutuality or respect in this conversation. 

The man to the far right slept with a woman from his office. He simultaneously speaks about her as a slut and a child, a slut for sleeping with him (which he throughly pursued by get her drunk) and then proceeds to mock her for getting drunk off of just a few drinks and for her childish underwear (“she’s a little girl”). Him and his co-working are laughing at her. He speaks about her as if she wasn’t a person, but a story, a gag, an accomplishment. There is no respect for her or her privacy. She is now defined by this sexual encounter for them. She is no longer anything else, nothing that she was before, she is what this story says of her. 

Finally, I think what I find most striking about this interaction is how I have heard somethings too similar. In the dorm, dinning hall, library, wherever, you can overhear conversations about a girl being a slut because she slept with the guy accusing her of being a slut (what does that make him?) or how a girl was pretty but too much of a slut for him, or a girl being too virginal to put out and a waste of time trying to hook up with.

Different decade, same sexist crap.

(don’t feel bad about deleting this before reblogging) 

I frankly did not remember this scene, but the above text explains it beautifully.

I hear it too, constantly. From people in the library, before classes start, it’s unavoidable. My friend’s boyfriend calls her “slut” to her face for no reason aside from the fact that she is a woman and has had sex with him. 

Sexism is clearly not dead. Mad Men shows it at a time 50 years ago when women’s rights was at a peak and the same problems seen then are seen today.

(via fyeahmm)

I’m home. Took 4 months, but I was not dying to get back here like in the past.

This was an excellent year. Everything fell into place, which I was not expecting at the beginning of the year. 

I have considered myself to be a pessimist since I knew what that word meant. Why?  When things do not work out, I am prepared to deal with the consequences. And when things actually do work out, I am always pleasantly surprised. And this year was no exception. I thought I would be unhappy, and feel the need to transfer in order to be happy. But I didn’t. 

I sought out classes that interested me. I actually opened up to people and now can say that I have a solid support system both at school and at home. I was able to declare my majors and I aced my classes and made Dean’s List both semesters.

I also think I’ve figured out what I want to do after I graduate. It’s not set in stone but I have some pretty solid ideas that I would love to see play out. 

I know that things won’t always work out so wonderfully and I likely will fall on my face at some point and fail, more or less. But at least I know how to recover and that recovery is always possible. 

unhistorical:

May 17, 1954: The Supreme Court unanimously rules public school segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education.

Sixty years ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a landmark case that the segregation of public schools was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Newly-appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the opinion:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group…. We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

The doctrine of “separate but equal” as justification for racial segregation emerged in the United States in the 1890s and was granted constitutional legitimacy in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which the court upheld a Louisiana law that provided for separate railway cars for blacks and whites. This decision laid the foundation for the dismantlement of Reconstruction Era reform, and for the enactment of Jim Crow laws. While de jure segregation was not as all-encompassing in the North, many former Union states also maintained racially segregated schools: it was the policy of the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas that Oliver L. Brown and twelve other plaintiffs challenged in Brown v. Board. At the time, the Board’s policy permitted Topeka’s school districts to segregate their elementary and middle schools. Throughout the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, the NAACP undertook a campaign to challenge “separate but equal” under legal premises. Under the direction of the NAACP, each of the plaintiffs enrolled their children in local all-white schools and, when the schools refused their children enrollment, filed a class action suit in the District Court of Kansas, which subsequently ruled in favor of the Board. This decision took place in 1951.

The case that was heard by the Supreme Court in 1953 comprised six separate NAACP-backed cases, including Brown v. Board. After much deliberation, the Warren Court decreed in a unanimous decision that the segregation of public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The justices were divided on how Brown could be enforced and on the issue of judicial activism versus restraint, but Chief Justice Warren pushed for unanimity to further legitimize the decision and prevent Southern resistance (which persisted regardless). Although Brown was a key decision and the first step toward the end of de jure segregation, the path to desegregation was long and uncertain, and did not encompass solutions to de facto inequalities that had emerged during over half a century of racist policies. Topeka desegregated its elementary schools within two years, but resistance in the South against the court’s decision and against desegregation was inexorable, resulting in incidents such as the Little Rock Crisis and other manifestations of what Virginian politicians dubbed “massive resistance”.