Michelle Moquin's "A day in the life of…"

Creative Discussions, Inspiring Thoughts, Fun Adventures, Love & Laughter, Peaceful Travel, Hip Fashions, Cool People, Gastronomic Pleasures, Exotic Indulgences, Groovy Music, and more!

  • Hello!

    Welcome To My OUR Blog!


    Michelle Moquin's Facebook profile "Click here" to go to my FaceBook profile. Visit me!
  • Copyright Protected

    Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Checker
  • Let Michelle Style YOU!

    I am a "Specialist in Styles" Personal Stylist. Check out my Style website to see how I can help you discover, define, and refine your unique style.
  • © Copyright 2008-2023

    All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2023. All material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don't post it to my blog.
  • In Pursuit Of…

    Custom Search
  • Madaline Speaks

    For those of you interested in reading an Earthling Girl's Guide to a better Government, and a Greener world, check out the blog:
  • Contact Your Representatives and Senators Here!

    To send letters to your representatives about any issue of interest, Click here


    To send letters to your Senators about any issue of interest, Click here


    Get involved - Write your letters today!
  • On The Issues

    Don't be uninformed! Click here to see how every political leader on every issue voted.
  • Don’t Believe The Lies – Get The Facts

    FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. They monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Their goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

    Click here to get the facts.

    Pulitzer Prize Winner Politifact.com is another trusted site to get the facts. Click here to get the facts.

  • Who’s Paying Who?

    On The Issues is a nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and public policy.
  • Blog Rules of Conduct

    Rule #1: "The aliens can not reveal anything about anyone’s life that would not be known without the use of our technology. The exception being that if a reader has a question about his or her health and the assistance of alien technology would be necessary to answer that question.”

    Rule #2: "Aliens will not threaten humans and Humans will not threaten aliens."

    Rule #3:

    Posting Comments:

    When posting a comment in regards to any past or archived article, please reference the title and date of the article and post your comment on the present day to keep the conversation contemporary.

    NOTE: You do not need to add your e-mail address when posting a comment. Your real name, an alias, a moniker, initials...whatever ...even simply "anonymous" is all you need to add in the fields in order to post a comment.

    Thank you.

  • *********

    Yellow Pages for San Francisco, CA
  • Meta

  • Looking For A Personal Stylist?

    Michelle has designed and styled for the stars! She can be your "Specialist in Styles" Personal Stylist too. Check out Michelle's style website
  • Recent Posts

  • Michelle’s E-mail:

    E-mail me! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • Care To Twitter? Come Tweet Me!

  • Disclaimer: Adult Blog

    I DO NOT CENSOR COMMENTS POSTED TO THIS BLOG: Therefore this blog is not for the faint hearted, thin skinned, easily offended or the appointed people's moralist. If you feel that you may fit in any of those categories, please DO NOT read my blog or its comments. There are plenty of blogs that will fit your needs, find one. This warning also applies to those who post comments who would find it unpleasant or mentally injurious to receive an opposing opinion via a raw to vulgar delivery. I DO NOT censor comments posted here. If you post a comment, you are on notice that you may receive a comment in language or opinion that you will not approve of or that you feel is offensive. If that would bother you, DO NOT post on my blog.

    27Mar2011
  • Medical Disclaimer:

    I am not a doctor nor am I medically trained in any field. No one on this website is claiming to be a medical physician or claiming to be medically trained in any field. However, anyone can blog information about health articles, folk remedies, possible cures, possible treatments, etc that they have heard of on my blog. Please see your physician or a health care professional before heeding or using any medical information given on this blog. It is not intended to replace any medical advice given to you by your licensed medical professional. This blog is simply providing a medium for discussion on all matters concerning life. All opinions given are the sole responsibility of the person giving them. This blog does not make any claim to their truthfulness, honesty, or factuality because of their presence on my blog. Again, Please consult a health care professional before heeding any health information given here.

    27Mar2011
  • Legal Disclaimer:

    Michelle Moquin's "A Day In The Life Of..." publishes the opinions of expert authorities in many fields. But the use of these opinions is no substitute for legal, accounting, investment, medical and other professional services to suit your specific personal needs. Always consult a competent professional for answers to your specific questions.

    27Mar2011
  • Fair Use Notice Disclaimer

    This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from me. You can read more about "fair use' and US Copyright Law"at the"Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School." This notice was modified from a similar notice at "Common Dreams."

Wonderful Women Of The World

Posted by Michelle Moquin on May 21st, 2014


Bookmark and Share

Good morning!

Michelle Obama hardly ever gets written up enough for what she does as an amazing woman and FLOTUS. So when I find something written about FLOTUS besides her chic fashion sense (Which I do enjoy! But c’mon she has so much more to offer us, if we just can just get the opportunity to read and listen.), I get excited.

Michelle Obama, a Wonderful Woman Of The World, gave a wonderful warm, heartfelt, honest, living-in-the-real-world speech, when she spoke to graduating students on Senior Appreciation Day in Topeka, Kansas, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the landmark Brown v Board of Education Supreme Court decision.

So, just what is the landmark Brown v Board? Here’s the write from the L.A. Times. I was not familiar with all of the details, and perhaps you aren’t either:

Brown vs. Board of Education: Here’s what happened in 1954 courtroom

EDITOR’S NOTE: On May 17, 1954, a hushed crowd of spectators packed the Supreme Court, awaiting word on Brown vs. Board of Education, a combination of five lawsuits brought by the NAACP’s legal arm to challenge racial segregation in public schools. The high court decided unanimously that “separate but equal” education denied black children their constitutional right to equal protection under the law, effectively removing a cornerstone that propped up Jim Crow, or state-sanctioned segregation of the races.

Associated Press reporter Herb Altschull chronicled the decision and what it meant for segregation, which in 1954 permeated many aspects of American life. Using the style and language of journalists of his era, including a reference to Asians as “Orientals,” Altschull captured the uncertainty hanging over a society on the brink of seismic change. Here is Altschull’s compelling report. 

The Supreme Court ruled today that the states of the nation do not have the right to separate Negro and white pupils in different public schools.

By a unanimous 9-0 vote, the high court held that such segregation of the races is unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Warren read the historic decision to a packed but hushed gallery of spectators nearly two years after Negro residents of four states and the District of Columbia went before the court to challenge the principle of segregation.

The ruling does not end segregation at once. Further hearings were set for this fall to decide how and when to end the practice of segregation. Thus a lengthy delay is likely before the decision is carried out.

Dean Acheson, secretary of State under former President Harry Truman, was in the courtroom to hear the ruling. He called it “great and statesmanlike.”

Atty. Gen. [Herbert] Brownell was also present. He declined comment immediately. Brownell and the Eisenhower administration, like Truman’s, opposed segregation.

For years 17 Southern and “border” states have imposed compulsory segregation on approximately two-thirds of the nation’s Negroes. Officials of some states already are on record as saying they will close the schools rather than permit them to be operated with Negro and white pupils in the same classrooms.

In its decision, the high court struck down the long-standing “separate but equal” doctrine first laid down by the Supreme Court in 1896 when it maintained that segregation was all right if equal facilities were made available for Negroes and whites.

Here is the heart of today’s decision as it deals with this hotly controverted doctrine:

“We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal education opportunities?”

“We believe that it does.”

James C. Hagerty, presidential press secretary, told a news conference the White House would have no comment at this time. He noted that Warren’s opinion said formulation of specific decrees must await later hearings.

Gov. Herman Talmadge, one of the most outspoken supporters of segregation, hit back from Atlanta that the court’s decision had reduced the constitution to “a mere scrap of paper.”

“It has blatantly ignored all law and precedent and usurped from the Congress and the people the power to amend the Constitution and from the Congress the authority to make the laws of the land,” Talmadge said.

Thurgood Marshall, Negro attorney from New York who had argued the case against segregation last December, said he was highly pleased that the decision was unanimous and that the language used was unequivocal.

“Once the decision is made public to the South as well as to the North,” Marshall said, “The people will get together for the first time and work this thing out.”

He said he was not in any way fearful lest the final decree nibble away at the principles in the decision. Marshall said, too, he believes the people of the South will abide by the ruling. “The people of the South are just as law abiding as any other good citizens,” he said.

Marshall is a special counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which has spearheaded the drive against segregation. He said NAACP people will meet this week to discuss “what we are going to do.”

Today’s decision was the first major ruling of the Supreme Court since Warren became chief justice last October, succeeding the late Fred Vinson.

The court confined its ruling to the question of the segregation of Negro public school pupils, but it obviously is applicable to the exclusion from public schools of any minority group — Orientals, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and so on.

Today’s decision was the latest in a series of court rulings wiping out legal restrictions on Negroes.

In previous cases the Supreme Court had:

1. Ruled that colleges must admit Negroes to study professional courses not open to them in Negro colleges.

2. Ruled that Negroes may not be excluded from train and bus coaches operated in interstate travel.

3. Ruled that Negroes may not be barred from eating in restaurants in the District of Columbia.

The “separate but equal” doctrine was set forth in a 7-1 decision on May 18, 1896, in a case involving Homer Adolph Plessy, who was part Negro.

Plessy boarded a train for a ride from New Orleans to Covington, La., and took a seat in a coach assigned to white passengers in violation of a Louisiana law which required segregation of whites and Negroes on trains.

The conductor asked Plessy to leave the white coach but he refused. A policeman arrested Plessy and took him to jail in New Orleans.

That set off a vigorous legal battle in which the Louisiana Supreme Court eventually upheld the state law. Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and the decision went against him.

Justice Henry Billings Brown, who wrote that decision, said the Louisiana law was not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution since Plessy was not refused the right to ride in trains so long as he stayed in a coach restricted to Negroes.

Thus grew up the philosophy of “separate but equal” facilities. Warren, in today’s decision, wrote that the Plessy case involved transportation, not public schools. Inasmuch as he called special attention to the distinction, it is apparent that the court is not now dismissing all forms of segregation.

Warren said that when the 14th Amendment was enacted, “education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states.”

“Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well as in the business and professional world.”

Warren noted that in the early 1870s when cases dealing with segregation first went to the Supreme Court, “compulsory education was virtually unknown” and that for this reason the question of school segregation was unimportant.

After the 1896 decision, Warren wrote, American courts began using it as a basis for decisions on all matters dealing with separation of Negroes and whites.

But it was not until the present cases were brought before the court, Warren said, that the “separate but equal” doctrine was challenged insofar as it might deal with public school education.

Warren noted that the lower courts, in finding against Negro appellants on the basis of the 1896 decision, maintained that the Negro and white schools involved had, in fact, been equalized “with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers and other ‘tangible’ factors.”

But, the Chief Justice said, “our decision. cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.”

The Warren opinion recalled that in an earlier decision dealing with the question of whether Negroes should be admitted to graduate courses in segregated universities, the court had said this:

“To separate them (Negroes) from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”

Reaction from Capitol Hill was swift and in some cases strongly critical.

Sen. [Richard] Russell of Georgia, leader of Southern Democrats in the Senate, termed the decision “a flagrant abuse of judicial power.” He said questions like that of segregation should be decided by the lawmakers, not the courts.

Other Southerners were plainly unhappy, but they did not go so far as Russell. Sen. [Marion Price] Daniel (D-Texas) said the verdict was “disappointing” and that he couldn’t see how the court could arrive at such a decision.

Sen. [Allen J.] Ellender (D-La.) said, “I am of course very much disappointed by this. But I don’t want to criticize the Supreme Court. It is bound to have a very great effect until we readjust ourselves to it.”

He said there would be “violent repercussions” if enforcement were ordered too quickly.

Rep. [Kenneth B.] Keating (R-NY), a strong backer of civil rights legislation, said “There is no doubt about the soundness of the court’s decision.”

Gov. William B. Umstead of North Carolina said in a statement put out by his office that he was “terribly disappointed.”

J.M. Hinton, South Carolina conference president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), said:

“Christianity and democracy have been given a great place in America through the elimination of segregation in public school and communism has lost a talking point.”

The appeals from the four states – Kansas, Delaware, Virginia and South Carolina – challenged the legality of segregation on the ground that it violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The District of Columbia complaint alleged violation of the 5th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, put through shortly after the end of the Civil War, was designed to reinforce the rights of the newly freed slaves. It said that no state may deprive any person of due process or equal rights under the law.

The 5th Amendment gives all persons involved in court cases dealing with federal matters the right to due process of law.

Actually, the court did not decide the question purely on the basis of these amendments.

Warren wrote that the court “cannot turn the clock back” to the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868 or the imposing of the “separate but equal” doctrine in 1896.

“We must consider public education,” Warren wrote, “In the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the nation. “

“Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.”

“Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments… It is the very foundation of good citizenship… In these days it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.”

“Such an opportunity where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”

The court minced no words in applying the “equal rights” section of the 14th Amendment to the issue of school segregation. It said:

“We hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the action has been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”

It disposed of the “due process” section in this way:

“This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the due process clause…”

That was for the cases of the four states. But in the District of Columbia case, the court applied the due process provisions of the 5th Amendment, saying:

“We hold that racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.”

Warren’s opinion noted that enforcement of the court ruling raised “problems of considerable complexity.”

It was for this reason that the court ordered further arguments in the fall. Brownell and the attorneys general of all states where segregation is now permitted were invited to take part, so that appropriate decrees can be worked out.

Briefs must be filed by Oct. 1.

The decision was made public in a highly unusual manner. Normally, copies of Supreme Court rulings are given to reporters simultaneously with the start of their reading from the bench.

In this case, no copies were given out until after Warren had finished reading the opinion. Thus it was not until he was well into it was the full import of the court’s decision known— that segregation had been ruled unconstitutional.

No reason was announced for this departure from the usual practice.

The court had weighed the issues for a long time. The first arguments on the cases were held in December 1952. Rearguments were heard in December 1953, after the Eisenhower Administration took over.

And...I posted the video, so you could watch her full speech. It is 20 minutes but so worth it.  Powerful and moving.

 First Lady Michelle Obama Addresses Senior Appreciation Day

Readers: What an awesome speech. I am so moved. I love the way Michelle Obama puts the power into the hands of the young to bring about change. I HOPE they take it on.

Thoughts? Blog me.

Peace & love…to all.

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2014

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

11 Responses to “Wonderful Women Of The World”

  1. Social Butterfly Says:

    Michelle,that’s such a seminal case, I was surprised (if I read correctly) when you said you hadn’t heard of it. Loving v. Virginia is worth a look at too – it came up thirteen years after Brown.

    There’s been some stupidly inane laws society lived with that eventually got overturned. I look forward to the day America wakes up and overturns some of the legislation protecting the interests of big business.

    /SB

  2. Christopher* Says:

    Michelle: I don’t know how long it’s been since SCOTUS ruled by an unanimous vote in favor of the people on anything. Thank you FLOTUS.

    The FCC’s proposed Internet rules are out — and they’re terrible.

    As we feared, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is pushing a plan that would allow rampant discrimination online. If approved, these rules would mean the end of Net Neutrality.

    But not all is lost. The FCC has opened up a formal comment period for us to weigh in on its proposal. This is our chance to tell the agency what we think of its plan to allow a corporate takeover of the Internet.

    Chairman Wheeler’s plan would let ISPs like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon create a two-tiered Internet, with fast lanes for those who can afford the extra fees — and a slow dirt road for the rest of us.

    These companies would have the power to pick winners and losers online and discriminate against online content and applications. And no one would be able to do anything about it.

    The tide of opposition to the FCC’s proposal is rising. Millions of activists and hundreds of organizations and companies have spoken out against this plan. If more of us speak up, we can get rid of these rules and protect Net Neutrality for good.

    Thanks for all that you do—

    Josh, Candace, Misty and the rest of the Free Press team
    freepress.net

  3. Christopher* Says:

    Oh yeah, the link:

    http://www.freepress.net/?akid=4785.10295745.Unj1Lv&rd=1&t=5

  4. Clark Says:

    I agree with you Christopher* it is about time the Court made a decision for the people rather than the 1%.

  5. Marlene Says:

    /SB if that happens the people in Hell will be drinking ice water.

  6. Will Says:

    Last night, Democratic voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Kentucky nominated three great candidates who are in great shape to beat three of the worst and most vulnerable Republicans in the country.

    In Pennsylvania, polling has shown Tom Wolf with a double-digit lead over Gov. Tom Corbett, one of the least popular and least successful governors in the country, and we have a major opportunity to turn that crucially important governor’s mansion blue.

    In Georgia, State Senator Jason Carter — yeah, Jimmy Carter’s grandson — is locked in a dead heat with the well-financed and ethically-challenged Gov. Nathan Deal.

    In Kentucky, a recent poll shows Alison Lundergan Grimes ahead of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell… and I don’t really have to tell you why it would be so great to ditch Mitch.

    Look, as well-positioned as we might be in states like these, we’ve got a whole lot of work to do in order to bring it home this November.

    Hundreds of thousands of Republicans came out to vote last night for McConnell, Deal, and Corbett, and I’m sure that guys like Karl Rove and the Koch brothers are hanging out in a smoky back room somewhere, figuring out what unbelievable amount of money to drop on the airwaves to drag down their Democratic opponents.

    P.S. — Democrats in Georgia also nominated Michelle Nunn for Senate last night. We don’t know who she’s going up against yet — it’s going to come down to which Republican candidate can move furthest to the right to satisfy the Tea Party — but the polls show she’s in a good position no matter what.

  7. Jessie Says:

    The bottom line is racists will fight to the end to maintain their superior position over those they are trying to discriminate against.

  8. Mike,TM Says:

    The right is now selling their members on the opportunity to make money by cashing in on the legalization of marijuana in states that have made it legal.

    The hypocrisy would stun you if you weren’t aware that to the right it’ all about the money. Steve Sjufferud is the reining con artist in the right’s field of scare and con the followers out of their money.

    He is being big time to push several con artists’ scheme to sell marijuanita investment opportunities to right’s choir.

  9. Ted Says:

    You won’t get much discussion on this topic because we whites are so uneasy about discussing the evil things we have done to the minorities or the people of color we have oppressed.

  10. Kelly Says:

    One of the reasons white males fear blacks so much is that they are a minority that will stand up to them and keep coming back.

  11. June Says:

    Tell Justice Antonin Scalia:
    “You have an obligation to recuse yourself from any case where your impartiality might be questioned. Given your wife’s long history of work with crisis pregnancy centers, which contribute to an atmosphere of intimidation and harassment outside abortion providers, there are major questions about your impartiality in McCullen v. Coakley, the Massachusetts buffer zone case. You should recuse yourself.”

    But he didn’t of course because he is bought and paid for.