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

NYC Liberal

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: New York
Home country: United States
Member since: Sun Aug 1, 2004, 01:28 PM
Number of posts: 19,783

Journal Archives

Obama left a moving comment on a 'Humans of New York' photo from Iran

A recent photograph of an Iranian father and his young son posted to the popular "Humans of New York" Facebook page caught the attention of US President Barack Obama.

And on Thursday, Obama — who is presiding over the biggest thaw in US-Iranian relations in decades — left a comment on the post, saying it "really resonated" with him.

In the original post, the Iranian father wrote about how he knew he was "raising a humanitarian" when he realized his then-5-year-old son had given away 2 pounds of fresh apricots on their walk home.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-comment-on-humans-of-new-york-photo-2015-9#ixzz3kk0pnrqV

Today’s his tenth birthday. He’s a very emotional young man. He likes to solve other people’s problems. One time when he was five years old, he came with me to the store and we bought two pounds of fresh apricots. I let him carry the bag home. He walked a little bit behind me the entire way. After awhile, I asked him to hand me an apricot. ‘I can’t,’ he said. ‘I’ve given them all away.’ I knew then that I was raising a humanitarian.

What an inspirational story. One of the most fulfilling things that can happen to you as a parent is to see the values you’ve worked to instill in your kids start to manifest themselves in their actions – and this one really resonated with me. I hope this young man never loses his desire to help others. And I’m going to continue doing whatever I can to make this world a place where he and every young person like him can live up to their full potential. (And if I ever get to meet him, I hope he’ll save me an apricot!)

**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
Go to Page: 1