I find it fascinating that a country that is considered to be more socialist than the United States has programs such as these in place that are vastly more democratic than anything we have in this country.

I think this subtitle is very interesting. It makes me think of how in both English and Perspectives we discussed how the built environment establishes gender in ways that are not necessarily blatant. The fact that the writer refers to the "spatial dimension" as a place that needs social justice reminds me of sexism in the built environment. Humans inherently are discriminatory, at least they have been in history. The fact that we have built buildings and environments that are also discriminatory should not be surprising, yet it kind of is. How could the construction of four walls and a door lack in providing social justice? Well it does, without proper awareness of the builder.

I never thought about the design of doorknobs and sinks until I googled "universal design" and these images came up. I wonder if disabled people look at mundane fixtures such as these differently than able-bodied people.

The author's analysis can be applied to any type of urban design construction. Thinking of the Atlanta Beltline and other urban design projects based here, it's easy to see that not only is the design itself a complicated and extremely important aspect to any project, but more often than not, politics plays a huge role in the success of the project.

This whole section reminded me of the neighborhood planning units (NPUs) that exist in Atlanta. We learned about them in depth in our Mapping class. They serve as a way to establish a more democratic way of changing the city in the ways it needs to be changed, much like the disability advocate organizations mentioned in the work.

In government, we discussed the difference between private discrimination and public discrimination. Certain businesses, despite being privately owned, would be considered public such as hotels, restaurants, and transportation facilities, and therefore, cannot discriminate. I wonder how the Supreme Court could interpret the same part of the Constitution, if someone owning a private business claimed they did not need to have full access for their business. For instance, if someone owned a very small store that had a small door, one too small for someone in a wheelchair, is that considered discrimination against handicapped?

I think it would be interesting to compare the movements behind equality and civil rights to the movement mentioned in this reading. While minorities such as non-heterosexuals and racial minorities have fought for equal treatment throughout this country's history, the idea of disabled people fighting just to be able to move around in their environment contrasts. While I don't believe anyone is refusing to give business to disabled people, or yells degrading comments at them (unless you're a jerk or a child), the fact that disabled people cannot even leave their homes comfortably and live in a world where they can transport themselves is an eye-opening one.

Clark, Anna. "Suing for Sidewalks." Next City. N.p., 13 June 2016. Web. Oct. 2016.

The above supplemental reading discusses a specific built environment issue that occurred in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Clark describes how a flood nearly destroyed the entire city, and she goes on to explain how this disaster influenced the city's need to create a more accessible built environment, specifically sidewalks. The article goes in depth with the subject of sidewalk construction in the country, and it explains how sidewalks are a necessity to universal accessibility. Another significant topic of the article is the idea that progress only occurs when legal threats are made. Clark gives examples of when the Department of Justice threatened the municipal government of Cedar Rapids, the city decided to make a change. Movements such as the Complete Streets movements and a generally understood importance of universal accessibility are no match for progress compared to suing--thus the title, "Suing for Sidewalks."

Godden, Rick, and Jonathan Hsy. "Universal Design and Its Discontents - Disrupting the Digital Humanities." Disrupting the Digital Humanities RSS. Punctum Books, 06 January 2016. Web. Oct. 2016.

In this essay, two authors, one disabled and one not, present significant counterarguments to the promotion of Universal Design (the topic of the selected reading), but it also highlights the concept of Digital Humanities. The disable author, Godden, makes the claim that Digital Humanities and Universal Design are concepts that need to be meshing together to make more progress. With access to both technology and the built environment, disabled people will gradually become more independent. The authors conclude by saying that UD presents itself as a goal that does not help to include disabled bodies in society.