HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NYC Liberal » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

NYC Liberal

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: New York
Home country: United States
Member since: Sun Aug 1, 2004, 02:28 PM
Number of posts: 16,893

Journal Archives

**HRC Group** 100,000 people have attended Bernie Sanders events this month. That doesn’t mean much.

From the Washington Post:

Let's say the Republican field more closely mirrored the Democrats. Imagine there were two Republicans running for president, Jeb Bush and Not Jeb Bush, where Not Jeb Bush did a better job appealing to the outer boundary of the party. Do you think that Not Jeb Bush couldn't roll up 20,000 people at a campaign stop in, say, Houston?

This is the point at which the question invariably turns to the contrast between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton isn't drawing these crowds, the argument goes. Sanders is capturing the energy. Both of which are true points. Sanders, as the underdog and the newcomer, has an energy that Clinton doesn't. She is not drawing the same crowds.

Part of this, though, is a conscious decision. Sanders, coming from the back of the pack, has to show that he's a legit candidate. He needs to be chuffed up. He needs to look big. Clinton has been trying to do the opposite. Her campaign launch was a Sunday e-mail followed by a road trip to Iowa. She's doing her best not to look like a behemoth. Her unofficial launch, on Roosevelt Island, was a neatly tailored group of a few thousand, packed into a space meant to display an audience that size for the cameras.

Could Clinton fill an arena in Los Angeles if she wanted to? Of course she could. Unquestionably. If you think Hillary Clinton can't do basic body mobilization when she needs to, you haven't been paying attention to American politics for the past few decades. There are unions in Los Angeles that can fill a stadium on a week's notice. This is not as big a task as it looks.


Anyone who thinks Hillary doesn't know exactly what she's doing vis-à-vis her campaign is severely underestimating her. She's been in politics for decades. She's already run a massive national campaign, and she's been planning this for years.

Anti-gay moral crusader gets SHUT DOWN

From the comments section on this article. Probably one of the best responses I've seen to the "government has to indulge my bigotry because RELIGION!" nonsense.

Anthony McLin Emilianne Hackett • 2 hours ago
As a Catholic, the intolerance portrayed in this video is embarrassing and is exactly why we are deservedly called names and mocked. Even if you consider someone else's lifestyle to be sinful, it is *absolutely not* your right or moral responsibility to denigrate them or judge their life. Their fight for recognition does not come at the expense of your morals, and their successes at getting recognition is not oppression of your views. This is not a zero-sum game and that takes some very twisted logic to defend. Acknowledging and taking some responsibility for the current state of things is not oppression against your moral values. Pretending at victimhood just negates any of the good work done towards setting moral examples.

Joe P Anthony McLin • 2 hours ago
As a Catholic, you're called to use your conscience, which includes making judgments about the morality of actions people are taking. This is not only a suggestion for Catholics - but a requirement. You are right that this is all about recognition for them - recognition for their sinful actions as being not sinful. As a Catholic, you should refuse to recognize them as such. It is oppression of my views, because the government that governs over me now supports non-reality, which will always have bad consequences for those who are still holding onto reality.

Anthony McLin Joe P • an hour ago
No, as a Catholic you're called to use your conscience, which includes making judgments about the morality OF YOUR OWN ACTIONS. We have absolutely no basis to make judgements on others (pretty sure there's a some very clear verses on that, something about a log and a splinter in your eye, or judge not lest ye be judged, or casting stones...). We are called to self-evaluate and to set an example by our actions.

The government does not define sin. The government defines what is and isn't legal under the areas where the government operates. The government is not forcing you to recognize sin as non-sin. Just because something is legal does not suddenly make it not a sin, and that's OK. Sin is explicitly the things not permitted by your religion. As a Catholic you hold yourself to a narrower set of moral guidelines than the wider array of things that are considered legal. That does not give you the right to impose your morals or restrict legality to match your narrow set of permissible behaviors.

Eating meat on a Friday during Lent is a sin. The government doesn't care what you eat on Friday. What possible logic explains that the government should prohibit the consumption of meat on Fridays. It is a sin for a Jew to work on the Sabbath. Should the government shut down all businesses on Saturday? Because that's the same logic. Just because I equate some action as a sin, does not give me the right (religiously as a Catholic nor politically as an American) to restrict others from that action.

Gambling is a sin, drinking to excess is a sin (some believe any alcohol is a sin), taking drugs is a sin, etc. Even within Catholicism it is the individual's decision to sin out of free will. You do not have the mandate to prevent them from ever being able to make that choice for themselves.

You do not live a country governed by Catholic law, just like we're glad that this country is not governed by Sharia law. Instead we live in a country where people of all religions, races, and genders are equal in the eyes of the law. This means that the country's laws must be *more* open and encompassing than any particular group's internal moral guidelines.

Lashing out and denigrating others because they are sinners and their communal values do not reflect your own is exactly opposite to the teachings of Christ and the Church. Yes, you should stand up. Yes, you should speak your faith. But *how* you do that is more important than the act itself. Reaching out to someone and having an adult discussion where you respect the other person for their humanity will go much farther than condemning them as a sinner ever will. Starting from a position of self-righteousness will never make for successful dialogue.

Next time you're in a soup kitchen, ask yourself this: "Will I help them more by serving food, or by telling at them that they are sinners?" Because that's exactly the same thing you are doing when you fight to impose your moral views in law.

As a Catholic I recognize that not everyone shares my morals. Not everyone adheres to the same religious principles as I. My morals are not synonymous with societies. That may be hard for me when things differ, but that's part of my cross to bear, not society's. Externalizing it and blaming society is a cop-out and an avoidance to make the difficult changes necessary in your own life.

If you feel indignant because of the action of others, then what does that say about your faith in yourself?

Take corrective action in *yourself* and set an example by your own life and actions. Stop worrying about whether others might be sinning or not.

"Equal Dignity": Tomorrow's NY Times front page

HRC Room: Clinton vs Sanders, as explained by Calvin & Hobbes

To me, this sums up the debate on DU thus far:

Supreme Court strikes down law in Jerusalem passport case

Source: CNN

The Supreme Court struck down part of a federal statute that allowed Americans born in Jerusalem to list "Israel" as the place of birth on their passport.

The decision is a victory for the Executive Branch and affirms that "the power to recognize foreign states and governments and their territorial bounds is exclusive to the Presidency."

The case was brought by the family of a 12-year-old boy born in Jerusalem who sought to list Israel as his place of birth in passport."

The vote was 6-3.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/zivotofsky-supreme-court-jerusalem-passport/index.html

Sony pulls release of 'The Interview'

Source: CNN

Sony on Wednesday said it would cancel next week's planned release of "The Interview," after most of the country's largest theater chains had decided not to show it.

The decision by Sony (SNE) follows a threat on Tuesday from anonymous hackers that people should avoid going to theaters where "The Interview" is playing.

"In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film "The Interview," we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25 theatrical release," Sony said in its first statement on the matter.

"Sony Pictures has been the victim of an unprecedented criminal assault against our employees, our customers, and our business. ... We are deeply saddened at this brazen effort to suppress the distribution of a movie. ... We stand by our filmmakers and their right to free expression and are extremely disappointed by this outcome."

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-theater-owners/index.html?hpt=hp_t2&hpt=hp_c2

Scott Brown -- Making History!

First major party senate candidate ever to lose twice to women

A Smart Politics analysis finds that if Scott Brown wins the New Hampshire GOP primary, he would become just the fourth major party politician in U.S. history to face three female major party U.S. Senate nominees, and, if he loses to Jeanne Shaheen, would become the first to lose to two of them.


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2014/08/01/scott-brown-shot-history-senate-candidate-has-ever-lost-twice-women/BEJJDY5HpxQlqt5miNlzCM/story.html

Supreme Court strikes blow to public sector unions

Source: MSNBC

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court limited the ability of unions to automatically collect dues from its members. The ruling will not apply to full-fledged public employees, but is still a blow to the power of unions. The four liberal justices dissented from the majority opinion.

Public sector workers are a bulwark of organized labor’s fading power, and a top target for the conservative movement.

In 2003, Illinois passed a law that substantially strengthened the unions by recognizing home health care workers providing rehabilitation services as public employees and allowing them to be represented by the Service Employees International Union. The workers are paid through the federally funded Medicaid program.

The workers weren’t compelled to join the union, but even if they didn’t money was deducted out of their paycheck to pay union dues, because the union ultimately represents them in negotiations with management over pay and working conditions – the money cannot be used for the union’s political activities.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-public-sector-unions

Supreme Court strikes down abortion clinic buffer zone

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON -- Abortion remains an issue that divides the Supreme Court, but the justices had little disagreement Thursday in defending the free speech rights of abortion opponents.

The court ruled unanimously that Massachusetts went too far -- literally -- when it created 35-foot buffer zones around abortion clinics to keep demonstrators away from patients.

The decision united Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberals. The other conservatives would have issued a more sweeping ban on laws that restrict abortion protests.

Although the court had upheld an eight-foot buffer zone in Colorado in 2000, the Massachusetts law passed in 2007 went 27 feet farther. During oral arguments in January, that had even the court's liberal, female justices wondering if the Bay State had gone too far. "That's a lot of space," Justice Elena Kagan said.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/26/supreme-court-abortion-clinic-buffer-zones/6698787/



I agree with this decision. Harassment and assault are already illegal and if any of these protesters do that, they can and will be arrested and charged. But a blanket restriction on the location of all protests reeks too much of the "free speech zones" I think we all despise.

Legendary radio personality Casey Kasem dies at 82

Source: CNN

Casey Kasem, who entertained radio listeners for almost four decades as the host of countdown shows such as "American Top 40" and "Casey's Top 40," died early Sunday, according to a Facebook post from his daughter Kerri Kasem.

Casey Kasem was 82 and had been hospitalized in Washington state for two weeks.

"Even though we know he is in a better place and no longer suffering, we are heartbroken," Kerri Kasem wrote. "Thank you for all your love, support and prayers. The world will miss Casey Kasem, an incredible talent and humanitarian; we will miss our Dad."

Kerri Kasem said friends and family were by her father's side when he died.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/15/showbiz/casey-kasem-obit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »