HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cheyanne » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

cheyanne

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:17 PM
Number of posts: 733

Journal Archives

beyond that cross at ground zero

This is a good learning experience for all of us on how discrimination works. Here is the catechism for the day.

Let's start at the beginning: Why was only a cross put up in the first place?

Because the majority did not even think about the other religions in America . . .no one thought: gee, i think that we should make this an ecumenical site for all Americans.

That's the way discrimination works: the majority isn't even aware of other's religions or non-religions. they assume that they should express their feelings in a public place, end of story.

So lessons learned:

a. devaluing others is an unacknowledged assumption in most social discourse.

b. the importance of diversity in widening the discourse.

Now that I've cleared that up, next question:

What should we do about it?

Don't remove the cross at this point. Include any others who want to honor the dead according to their beliefs. Including atheists.


Did you see the Michelle Obama skit on Jimmy Fallon's show this week?

I found the skit distasteful. It could be because I didn't find the jokes funny. But it seems to me that the girls were portrayed without any redeeming qualities. Maybe if I knew some preteens, I would have found it funny.

I wonder what other women felt about it.

Why is Cruz destroying the Republican party?

My take is that he is governed by the hard dominionist view that he is specially chosen by God to Christianize America. Hard dominionism believes that America is or should be not only a nation of Christian values, but that certain people are chosen to take leadership positions in all segments of society to bring about a blessed state that enforces Christian beliefs.

Thus, with his sense of god-given purpose, he knows that whatever he does is the will of God and will lead to the establishment of a theocracy in America.

So he need not worry about compromise or working with others.

Why do we let the right wing frame the "debt limit" crisis?

It's not a vote to raise the debt limit.

It's a vote to pay for what the government has already spent.

It should be called "minimum yearly payment amount" as my credit card so nicely puts it.

Or "payment schedule 2013 debt".

Was the Hudson Lights Dev. the reason behind the closures to the GWB?

Here a part of an article from a NJ real estate writer about the development.

quote
Having covered politics in New York and Pennsylvania for the Albany Times Union and the Patriot-News, it certainly seems as if it is well within the bounds of PLAUSIBLE -- given the kinds of dollars and players involved in deals like these -- that this real estate development deal is exactly the kind of issue that would cause political operatives to go wilding on a retribution scheme.

For instance, bond deals are always fodder for jealousy and shenanigans, because of the fees involved in generating the financing. What about the bond deal for Hudson Lights, as secured by Tucker Construction via banking giant Sovereign Santander? It's just one place to scratch around on to see if somehow, there are threads to be pulled. Retribution like closing bridge lanes may sound like stupidity, as Christie tried to characterize it. But it could be far worse and intentional that stupidity.

The key, going forward, will be to outline the background of this real estate development project. Nothing of this magnitude gets done anywhere without a lot of hands in the pot, or a lot of actors feeling like they may or may not have gotten their share of the deal.

unquote

I found this at:

http://www.lauravecsey.com/

useful 2014 phrase: pull a christie

definition: arbitrary vindictive chickenshit

NYT on Volker Rule: loopholes, I don't understand

Peter Eavis's article in the NYT on the Volker Rule contains many interesting bits about the loopholes available to banks.

I don't know anything about banking, but one quote from a director at Deloitte & Touche is about whether banks should be making trades for themselves as well as customers.

The director seems to be saying that the banks don't have an easy way to separate their trades from customers. Here's the quote.


"You could have a trading blotter that contains thousands of trades a day, and figuring out what goes with what could be difficult."


Does this mean that presently banks put everybody's trades in a pot and then allocates what they "think" is the right amounts to all?

Please explain.

thanks.

Politifact is having vote-in for worst lie of the year. Go vote.

byw, I did a write-in vote for all the anti-ACA lies to be bundled together to get a special award. Six of the 10 finalists are anti-ACA lies.

why there'll always be an England . . .

Last year (gee, I'm late with this) The Tory party's chief whip had to resign due to allegations that he called police officers at Downing St. "plebs". And it's going to court.

I thought that using "plebian" had gone out with Dickens . . .

In America, I think the equivalent would be "redneck", but please correct me if I'm wrong.

The importance of separating legal and social issues in Zimmerman trial.

It's true that the Zimmerman trial involves issues of racism and gun control. These are social issues that need to be debated and resolved in our social arena. However, a trial is based on legal issues only. It deals with this particular instance. By mixing the social and legal issues, the trial is being judged not on what it can and should do but on issues can't deal with. This is a disservice to the du community.

That is not to say that wider issues of racism and gun control should not be discussed here, but it should be clear that one's opinions on the actions of Martin and Zimmerman do not constitute a legal basis for a verdict.

Here is correction:
To defeat self-defense claim

At least one of the following must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.Zimmerman was committing a forcible felony at the start of the physical conflict with Martin. For example, trying to forcibly detain him.
2.Zimmerman did not have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm at the time he shot Martin.
3.Both a) and b) below must be proven BRD.
a)Zimmerman was the initial provoker of the conflict with Martin.
b)Zimmerman could have safely withdrawn from the fight but chose not to do so.

Also posted is the legal definition of stalking and what evidence is admissible in court.


Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »