Also their clothes (pockets, pockets, pockets).
if stuff is made for men, it’s practical and helps them be human beings
if stuff is made for women, it’s pretty and helps us be decoration
You forgot, the stuff made for women is also more expensive
Will never NOT reblog stuff such as this.
|—||C.S. Lewis (via buttondownsandbackpacks)|
"…[M]any of the Navajo actors would go off script in some scenes, joking around in their language. No one ever bothered to translate what was said, until now."
It really warms my heart to see the library looking out for its community in the light of everything happening in Ferguson.
EDIT: Be sure to follow Ferguson Library on twitter.
Far fewer articles describe the other constitutional violations taking place on the streets of Missouri, and those violations are every bit as urgent as the infringements on speech and assembly. We’ve seen very little coverage of the use of tear gas and rubber bullets as constitutional violations. But the due process clause bans the police from using excessive force even when they are within their rights to control a crowd or arrest a suspect. And tear gas is in a category all its own. Not only is unleashing it into a crowd an unconstitutional exercise of excessive force, but its use is banned by international law. That’s one of the reasons Amnesty International sent a team of investigators to Ferguson. Similarly, the use of rubber bullets under the circumstances is also unconstitutional. Some kinds of rubber bullets are more unconstitutional than others, because certain types are more likely to injure and maim.
But excessive use of force is only the beginning. Pulling people out of the crowd and arresting them without probable cause (or for being 2 feet off the sidewalk) violates the Fourth and 14th Amendments, particularly when those arrests are disproportionately of black protesters. The general arrest statistics in Ferguson reveal what looks to be a stunning constitutional problem. According to an annual report last year from the Missouri attorney general’s office, Ferguson police were twice as likely to arrest blacks during traffic stops as they were whites. Emerging reports about racial disparities in Ferguson’s criminal justice system and the ways in which the town uses trivial violations by blacks to bankroll the city (and disenfranchise offenders) all represent constitutional questions. Why don’t we characterize them as such? These are not just violations of the law or bad policy. These are violations of our most basic and fundamental civil liberties.
Of course, probably the biggest potential constitutional violation of all—and eyewitness testimony suggests this as a real possibility—is the alleged use of excessive force by the police in shooting an unarmed 18-year-old at least six times. Under the law, each of those bullets must be separately justified, as necessary, even if one believes the officer’s story that Michael Brown rushed him. To be sure, the news media has covered this, but very few of us talk about the shooting as a potential violation of the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution is the foundational bargain between the people and their government, the framework on which our legal order rests. When we fail to talk about the arrests, searches, racial profiling, and government brutality in constitutional terms, we are failing to capture how profoundly the state has betrayed its promises.
|—||Ferguson’s constitutional crisis: First Amendment violations are only part of the story. (via dendroica)|
THIS WEBSITE I SWEAR
ehonauta replied to your post:There is a reviewer on Goodreads hating on short…
Bless their heart.
|—||It’s kind of precious and kind of one of the stupidest things anyone has ever complained about.|