POLITICS

NSA’s Phone Data Collecting is Worse than Illegal, It’s Ineffective

NSA, Manhattan Digest — Credit to: Watchdog

Civil libertarians on the right and the left have latched onto the report from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board into the NSA’s program that collects data on phone calls. The NSA’s collection of phone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act “implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value,” the report argued. “As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.”

Those who dislike the NSA and its program have started screaming that it’s illegal, just like they have said all along. The fact that the Board approved this report on a vote of 3-2 makes that a bit less certain. Moreover, the two dissenters served in the administration of George W. Bush, so they have the interests of the security community in mind.

Those who defend the program argue that the Board went beyond its brief in declaring the program illegal. Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) chairman of the House intelligence committee, sent out an email today that read in part, “In 38 times over the past seven years, 17 federal judges have examined this issue and found the telephone metadata program to be legal, concluding this program complies with both the statutory text and with the U.S. Constitution. I don’t believe the Board should go outside its expertise to opine on the effectiveness of counterterrorism programs.”

I happen to think the congressman is onto something here. Rather than worry about whether the Board went too far or whether the program is illegal or unconstitutional, let’s start with whether or not it works.

The term “has shown only limited value” is a Beltway manner of saying, “ain’t worth spit.” It leaves enough wiggle room in case, by some miracle, the program does find a bad guy. However, since it hasn’t (or they’d point to the case or cases where it did), the Board is OK with shutting it down.

When it comes to fighting terrorism, we have done a pretty lousy job at fighting smart. We’re good at sending the marines everywhere, and drone attacks are safe and satisfying if your blood lust is up. But when it comes to saying “that’s a waste of resources,” America has a lousy record. That’s why we’re building another air craft carrier and more submarines when our enemies are hiding in the mountains of Pakistan.

The first question is to ask is “will this work?” If the answer is “no,” then we need not go any further. When you’re looking for a needle in a haystack, a strategy that makes the haystack bigger (as the gathering of all the phone data does) is not going to work. Indeed, it will prove counterproductive. That being the case, who cares if it’s legal? We shouldn’t bother with it anyway.

New York’s First Lady Will Have Major Influence in Manhattan Politics

by Jeff Myhre

Chirlane McCray, the wife of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, is going to have a major role in Manhattan Politics and this new administration. While the mayor has declined to define her role with any precision, she’s going to be more like Hilary Clinton or Michelle Obama as the wife of the chief executive than Laura Bush or Rosalyn Carter.

That isn’t to say that Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Carter had no influence but rather that they operated behind the scenes. Any married man will tell you that a wife doesn’t need an office and a chief of staff to have influence. The question is how overt that influence will be. Mrs. McCray’s role is not going to be backstage.

Manhattan Politics NYC First Lady — Credit: Kelly Weill

McCray has just appointed Rachel Noerdlinger as her chief of staff – a woman who has been near the top of Al Sharpton’s operation. Her $170,000 annual salary is less than the $205,180 that city commissioners in charge of agencies get. Still, it’s hefty.

The mayor said “We utilized the model from the last person who had a similar role, which was Donna Hanover, who obviously was very active as chief of staff. So we looked at how her staffing was done and we’ve tried to base it on that model,” de Blasio said. Hanover, for those who don’t recall, was Mrs. Giuliani – who had a chief of staff, a press officer and two assistants.

Another signal that McCray is not going to operate behind the scenes came on Dr. King’s Birthday, when she spoke at Sharpton’s celebratory event. Speaking roles there are almost exclusively reserved for elected politicians.

However, the real reason to expect the mayor’s wife to be front and center on certain issues is her professional background. She entered politics in 1991 as a speechwriter for then-mayoy David Dinkins, a role she also held for state comptroller Carl McCall and city comptroller Bill Thompson. While Clinton was in office, she was a public affairs specialist at the New York Foreign Press Center. She also has private sector experience with 5 years with Maimonides Medical Center, and a six month stint at Citigroup’s PR department, which she herself said was “not a good fit.”

In an interview with Elle magazine, candidate de Blasio said “Chirlane’s been part of every major strategic decision in this campaign from day one. Literally. We started with an idea, and then we had to choose the core of our personnel, and then we had to choose our core ideas and message. Every part of it, every meeting that mattered.”

Her personality predisposes her to an active role, her experience and talents prove she has contributions to make, and the mayor has learned to rely on her. Her role in city government is going to be significant.

Blasio’s First 100 Days: Don’t Expect Amount to Much | Political News

by Jeff Myhre

When FDR became president in 1933, the country was suffering in the Great Depression. The Hoover administration either did nothing or the wrong thing, and the nation needed action. FDR delivered with 15 major bills in the first 100 days. And ever since then, “the first 100 days” has been a big deal with journalists and talking heads whenever a new guy gets elected. While I am a big fan of New York’s new mayor, I don’t expect him to deliver much on the four big promises he made during the campaign – largely because that delivery is in the hands of others.

Let’s look at the promises first. He wants to tax the super rich to pay for universal pre-kindergarten education and after-school programs for middle-schoolers. Then, he promised to create more housing for the middle and working classes by making property developers add it to their new plans – no affordable housing, no construction permits. Also, he promised a stronger paid sick leave law. And of course, there’s stop-and-frisk, which he promised to reform.

OK, hands up, who is against universal pre-K and after-school activities for our junior high school kids? No one is against them, but paying for them by taxing those earnings a quarter of a million a year annoys those rich folks. Still, we’ve got Mr. de Blasio in Gracie Mansion and his hand-picked Speaker of the City Council Melissa Mark-Viverito commands a huge majority on the council. It’s a done deal, right? Wrong. The state legislature has the power of the purse here, and I don’t know if the upstate Republicans will approve it. Besides, Albany doesn’t move fast even when there is bipartisan support for a bill.

Forcing real estate developers to create more affordable housing won’t happen in the first 100 days either. First, New York construction in winter doesn’t move that fast. And the developers are really good at weaseling out of their commitments. When Developer Forest City Ratner put up the Barclay Center in Brooklyn, part of the deal was 2,200 units of affordable housing. The Nets and Billy Joel have played at the Barclay Center, but the 2,200 units have yet to appear.

A better paid sick leave law will get passed but there are some corporate interests and entrepreneurs rabidly opposed to it. The city council will have to fight its way through their obstructionism. There will probably be hearings, studies and the usual delaying tactics, so this won’t get done in the first 100 days either.

When it comes to stop and frisk, that stupid policing tactic that allows cops to stop anyone and demand proof of innocence, the Mayor has but to give the order. His new police commissioner Bill Bratton needs no enabling legislation. He just has to inform the NYPD that stop and frisk is over, case closed.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and a new New York will take a while. Let’s be patient while the mayor works his way through the state legislature and the city council. As for stop and frisk, he’s going to lose a supporter if it’s still the way things are done in April.

New York City Council Elects First Latina Speaker Despite Scandal

by Jeff Myhre

Wednesday afternoon, the New York City Council unanimously elected Melissa Mark-Viverito as its new Speaker. She is the first Hispanic to hold the position. She is also very close to the new mayor, Bill de Blasio. Her election marks a major defeat for the county party bosses and a triumph for the progressive caucus on the council. Now, if her financial disclosure problems will go away, all will be well.

About the NYC Council Speaker

The Speaker’s job is the second most important in the city government after the mayor. While the Public Advocate is first in line in the event the mayor can’t complete his term, the Speaker controls the city’s legislative agenda and committee appointments. Annoy the Speaker, and you’re effectiveness on the council is greatly diminished.

For that reason, Mark-Viverito won unanimous support. Daniel Garodnick was her only real challenger up until shortly before the vote. Garodnik won a standing ovation for withdrawing at the last minute and saying “In the spirit of strengthening the Council, which animated my candidacy from the start, I want to formally concede to the next speaker of the City Council, my colleague, Melissa Mark-Viverito.” She had the votes, and putting his supporters on record as opposing her was political folly.

The progressive caucus and the Brooklyn Democratic Party, in a deal brokered by Mayor de Blasio, put together a majority despite the best efforts of the Queens Democratic boss Congressman Joe Crowley. Once this was done, the only thing Garodnik could do was a find a graceful exit – which he did. And since Carolyn Maloney is not running for re-election to Congress, expect Crowley to support him for the seat (and don’t be surprised if Mark-Viverito helps him, too – she’ll be glad to get rid of a rival).

Real Estate Scandel Information

Mark-Viverito does have a small problem stemming from property she owns and the city’s requirement that city council members (and 8,000 other people who get city paychecks) disclose various facts about their finances. The Daily News reported “She has been dogged by controversy in recent days after the Daily News reported that she rented out apartments in an E. 111th St. building she owns without reporting the income on city financial disclosure forms, and she still has not released her tax returns to clarify whether she reported the income to the IRS.”

In the absence of hard evidence of wrong-doing, I am prepared to say this was an oversight and that if she puts the paper work in order (and pays any appropriate fines), the issue will fade. However, if Joe Crowley gets a lever from this to use against her, her speakership might be short-lived.

Global Politics in 2014 – A Look Ahead

by Jeff Myhre

When the new year comes in, optimism is the order of the day – hope that the next 12 months will be better than the last 12. In international relations, that optimism is usually unfounded. The truth is 2014 is probably going to look a lot like 2013 did, and 2013 was a rather middling year. It won’t be as bad as 1939 when Europe began incinerating itself, but it won’t look much like 1989 when communism’s collapse became inevitable. What we’re looking at this year is muddling through some rather tricky issues.

North Korea is a perennial worry, and it has gotten worse since Kim Jong-Un inherited his father’s job as dictator for life. He’s not quite 30, and he has just executed his uncle, who had been his mentor. He has called back numerous diplomats and business people from abroad and purges are underway. What’s scary here is that, even without nuclear weapons, North Korea could easily destroy most of South Korea (one of the world’s most important economies). Any attack would put America and China in the mix, and that won’t end well. Containment is never a popular policy, but it’s the only one we’ve got with North Korea.

Iran is less of a worry, but because certain factions in the west and in Iran would like nothing more than continued tension (or even war), the place is a potential trouble spot. The Iranian nuclear program lies at the heart of the matter, and the truth is that Iran doesn’t have the makings of The Bomb, and probably can’t get the necessary weapons-grade uranium 235 in the next year. The deal made last year that stalls things for the next 6 months is crucial to diffusing this mess. I am betting calmer heads prevail, but that isn’t a guarantee.

The Islamic world is in the midst of a major theological-political struggle between the Sunni variety of the faith (which includes rather nasty people like Al Qaeda) and the Shia variety (Iran, Hezbollah). The difficult thing here for those of us who aren’t Muslims is that we really don’t have a dog in the fight, but it is a fight – people are dying in the Middle East over it. The humanitarian impulse to help is going to bump up against the unpleasant fact that there is almost nothing we can do to resolve the matter one way or another. A similar fight happened in Europe between the Catholics and the Protestants, the Thirty Years War. The Muslims won’t resolve their differences any faster.

Then, there is Pakistan, which part of the Sunni Islamic camp. It is ostensibly an ally of the United States and its intelligence services set up the Taliban in the first place as a way to keep India out of Afghanistan. And remember, Pakistan is where Osama bin Laden hid out for years. With allies like this, America doesn’t need enemies. As the US scales down its troop levels in Afghanistan, Pakistan will start throwing its weight around there a bit more.

Russia is not the problem it was a generation ago, but Vladimir Putin is trying to play great power when, in fact, Russia is a third tier nation at best. The real problem Russia has is a demographic time-bomb; a declining population will restrict its economic and military options in the future, and Putin is fighting a rear guard action with Russian nationalism, homophobia, and the weapons trade (Russia is Syria’s biggest supplier of weapons). Russia is playing games in eastern Europe, and there is just too much that can go wrong.

Of course, these are the obvious flashpoints, and if history teaches us anything, it’s that the biggest troubles don’t come from foreseeable disaster but from complete surprises. Happy 2014 anyway.

Honor Sandy Hook with Discussion

by Blair Kaplan

I’ll be honest; I have never been a proponent of guns. I have never owned, one, never held one, and never shot one.
I grew up in the heart of suburbia, in a safe neighborhood, in a safe town, in a safe county. I rode my bike on autumn Sundays, and collected fireflies in jars late into the summer night. You may even say that I lived a utopian childhood. I had not a care in the world, especially not for my safety.

My idea of hunting for food was, and to this day remains, going to the supermarket or opening up the refrigerator. Needless to say, gun violence and control was something completely off of my radar. It was something that happened to people who were not lucky enough to live where I did, not fortunate enough to be able to sleep soundly at night. Or so I thought. But the sad truth is that it will not matter where my future children grow up or how hard I try to shelter them, because gun violence does not discriminate. It doesn’t care about your race, religion, sexual orientation, or socio-economic status. It has proven time and time again that it can and it does happen anywhere: a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut; a middle school in Nevada, or at an international airport in Los Angeles.

Although the locations have been different, the scenes that have unfolded and the tragic details plastered across my screen, are one and the same. They are scenes of despair, unimaginable sadness, and unanswered questions. They are scenes happening all too frequently and they will only continue to occur unless something is done. While these larger acts of violence receive a multitude of media attention, a majority of the violence with the aid of a gun is occurring quietly each and every day. Gun laws and the lack thereof in this country have allowed gun violence to become a cancer, growing daily, spreading rapidly among the communities we call home.

The statistics are staggering.

“In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour. Firearm-related deaths and injuries result in estimated medical costs of $2.3 billion each year – half of which are borne by U.S. taxpayers. And once all the direct and indirect medical, legal and societal costs are factored together, the annual cost of gun violence in America amounts to $100 billion.”1

As a law school grad, who studied the second amendment, I certainly understand that the Constitution can be interpreted in many different ways and the politics involved in protecting our right to bear arms is complex. However, by my own personal beliefs, I find it hard to imagine that the forefathers of our country who fought wars with muskets and cannons would have wanted this. But if we are taking it at face value, then yes…you are allowed to own that AR-15 that you’ve always wanted (…and yes I had to look up the name of that gun.) But your ownership comes at what cost?

Many argue that we have the right to own guns in our homes to protect ourselves. And while this is true, I wonder just how many people have been helped by certain semi-automatic weapons. I don’t recall the last time I read an article, or watched a segment on television in which the “lucky” homeowner proudly exclaimed “Thank goodness for my semi-automatic weapon, otherwise I would never have been able to fend off those 30 men who robbed my home at once!” I haven’t heard it because it doesn’t happen. These are not guns for the protection of one’s home or for hunting or target shooting; these are guns designed to kill as many people as possible. After all, these are civilian copies of military weapons with features created to improve the likelihood of death and therefore don’t belong in civilian hands. Not to mention in the hands of those without background checks. This is not to say that all guns should be eliminated; I don’t have an opinion in that regard. But something needs to be done in order to protect ourselves.

After the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, the media spoke mostly of the theater’s liability for leaving exit doors open, or of the shooter’s encounter with a school psychiatrist prior to the event, arguing that it could have been prevented. After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, many suggested that the solution to the horrific violence that occurred was to train teachers to shoot and to supply them with guns, or alternatively to place security guards and metal detectors in schools. After all of these horrific, tragic, unimaginable incidents, the government continues to find a need for these weapons in the home, placing much of the blame everywhere but where it truly belongs.

We can easily play Monday morning quarterback, while we lounge safely on our sofas watching CNN and criticizing how those involved should have reacted. Or alternatively, we can aid those to defend themselves should such a disturbing event occur. (At a school in West Plains, Missouri, they are in fact doing just that by training teachers to carry concealed weapons.) But let us not forget that we are only treating a mere symptom of an underlying problem.

The fact that background checks are not required for the purchase of all guns is unspeakable in and of itself. (I will save the discussion of the reprehensible treatment of mental illness for another day.) Though it most certainly wouldn’t solve everything, the abolishment of certain types of guns for home use as well as background checks for every potential gun owner would be a good place to start. Furthermore, the safe keeping of guns and ammunition in the home is of the utmost importance.

We are dealing with our own “weapons of mass destruction.” We can no longer deny that the lack of gun control is waging war on our innocent. We would not accept this from those abroad, so why do we continue to accept it from our own citizens?

The right to bear all arms is a widely debated and polarizing topic. There are many aspects of this hot-button issue, which you and I will probably never agree upon. And that’s honestly okay. After all, you’re talking to the girl whose life has managed to go on without a hitch sans ammo. But as the one-year anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting approaches, I hope that we can continue the discussion of gun violence and control across this country, if for no other reason than for the twenty-six beautiful lives lost on that day as well as the many others whose lives have been cut far too short at the hands of a gun. After all, it could happen anywhere. There is never a better time than the present. Let’s not stop fighting for a solution.

1) http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/

Hunger’s New Normal: Food Stamps Slashed For Nearly 2M New Yorkers

by Beau G. Heyen

Days before nearly two million New Yorkers will see their food stamp benefits slashed under a $5 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), a major new study from Food Bank For New York City reveals that current benefit levels are already inadequate when it comes to meeting basic food needs. Food Bank’s report, which is published every four years and is the only comprehensive study on emergency food participants in the five boroughs, makes clear the effectiveness of adequate benefit levels and the danger of continuing to cut vital anti-hunger resources.

The report, titled “Hunger’s New Normal: Redefining Emergency in Post-Recession New York City,” finds that more than 40% of SNAP recipients in the five boroughs are also turning to food pantries and soup kitchens to keep food on the table. Despite a 2009 SNAP benefit increase, 75% of people accessing food pantries and soup kitchens who are on SNAP report that their benefits last only three weeks into the month. This finding has major implications as the 2009 increase, enacted as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), is scheduled to be clawed back this Friday, November 1 – a $5 billion cut that will result in nearly two million New Yorkers having less money for food each month.

With current benefit levels already failing to last the month, these cuts will create a hunger crisis for many families right in time for the holidays. Beginning on Friday, a household of three will lose, on average, $29 per month in SNAP benefits – an estimated loss of 76 million meals for New York City residents, more food than Food Bank For New York City, the country’s largest food bank, distributes in a year.

“New Yorkers receiving food stamps at current benefit levels are already forced onto the lines of food pantries and soup kitchens when their dollars simply can’t last the month. What happens when their food budgets are slashed this Friday? What happens if Congress passes an additional $40 billion in cuts to this program? New York City is on the edge of a hunger cliff, and nearly two million of our city’s neediest citizens are about to be pushed over the edge,” said Margarette Purvis, President and CEO of Food Bank For New York City.

Hunger’s New Normal also finds evidence that food poverty has been on the rise since the Great Recession and the country’s weak economic recovery. Since Food Bank’s last report in 2007:

More New Yorkers are experiencing hunger while there are fewer food pantries and soup kitchens to serve them: the number of New Yorkers accessing emergency food rose from 1.3 to 1.4 million, at the same time as the emergency food provider system shrunk by 25% a loss of 250 soup kitchens and food pantries in a five year period. So as the need has increased, the resources have diminished;
In 2012, more than 40% of SNAP participants were accessing emergency food;
More seniors are accessing emergency food: there has been a 32% increase in the number of seniors accessing food pantries and soup kitchens;
More people with college educations are accessing emergency food: the percentage of those accessing emergency food with some higher education or a college degree increased by 25%;
More Caucasian/White people are accessing emergency food: the percentage of participants on food pantry and soup kitchen lines who identified as Caucasian/White increased by 55%;
Emergency food is increasingly used as a long-term means of fighting hunger: 60% of respondents had been coming to a soup kitchen or food pantry for a year or more. For many, accessing emergency food has become a long-term means of keeping hunger at bay. This is the “new normal.”
Almost 60% of emergency food participants reported that most of the produce they ate came from emergency food programs and approximately 40% said emergency food was their main source of protein;
More people accessing emergency food are long-term unemployed: In 2007, about one-half of respondents said they had been unemployed for one year or less; in 2012, more than one-half of unemployed participants reported being unemployment three years or more.

“It is unacceptable to cut funding to food stamps at a time when need is outpacing resources. Our policymakers must work to protect programs like SNAP that, when adequately funded, are proven to be incredibly effective tools in fighting hunger,” concluded Purvis.

The report is based on data collected between November 2011 and July 2012 from more than 1,200 emergency food program participants at 141 food pantries and soup kitchens throughout the five boroughs. Data was collected on a variety of topics, including patterns of participation, satisfaction with food service, demographics, household composition, income and employment, participation in income support programs, participation in food assistance programs (like SNAP), housing, and health.

ABOUT THE CUTS:

On November 1, 2013, 76 million meals lost: This November, sweeping cuts to SNAP benefits will take effect, resulting in the estimated loss of 76 million meals for New York City residents. A household of three will lose, on average, $29 per month in SNAP benefits – or nearly $19 million per month in New York City alone. These cuts are the result of a deal struck in December 2010 in order to pay for a $0.06 per meal increase in federal school lunch reimbursements as part of the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.” While the White House promised to work with Congress to restore the funds before the cuts could take effect, the promise has yet to be fulfilled.

New York City alone will lose approximately $225 million a year in food purchases, which is money that supports jobs in our retail food sector and throughout the economy. The loss of 76 million meals over a year is more food than Food Bank For New York City – the largest food bank in the country with a robust and experienced network of 1,000 charities – distributes annually.

Pennsylvania Law Makes Touching Pregnant Bellies Without Consent Illegal

by Blair Kaplan

“Keep your hands to yourself!”

We are taught from a young age that we shall abide by this golden rule. “Don’t hit your brother; ask first before you pet the dog!” But how about… “May I touch your stomach?”

It seems rather intuitive that you don’t just walk up to strangers and touch them. (If you do, I suggest that you stop. Immediately.) So why would anyone think that it’s okay to touch a pregnant woman’s stomach?

Never mind the invasive line of questioning that generally grows along with the child in utero, the uninvited rubbing, patting, and just plain awkward contact with a pregnant woman’s belly is an all-too often occurring invasion of personal space. One apparently so pervasive, that in Pennsylvania it requires a statute to control.

The idea of keeping your hands to yourself isn’t novel. The common law of battery punishes one for committing “an unlawful touching of a person by another.” More specifically, in Pennsylvania, this idea of punishing one for an unconsented to physical touching has always been on the books. If you touch someone and harass, annoy, or alarm him or her in the process, you may be found guilty of harassment. It therefore makes sense that the touching of a pregnant woman’s belly without her permission may constitute harassment as well.

The new ruling came about after a Cumberland County, Pa. man was charged with harassment for touching a pregnant woman’s belly without her permission. The woman won the case, and set precedent for any other unwelcome belly touchers in the future.

What to do about Sochi?: An Open Letter

by Michael Tyminski

Hello everyone,

As you may be aware, in addition to doing TV reviews for Manhattan Digest, I’m also typically called on for live coverage of many of TV’s landmark events, whether it was this winter’s Grammy Awards or Oscars, or the upcoming VMA’s and Emmy Awards.

Looking ahead on the calendar, one of the landmark TV events of this season is the opening and closing ceremonies of this year’s Olympic Games in Sochi. While normally this is the sort of event I would jump on in a heartbeat, recent events in Russia make it difficult for me to be in a celebratory mood.

Recently, the Russian legislature passed some very harsh anti-LGBT laws that essentially codify such relationships as deviant and criminal, and puts a ban on “non-traditional” propaganda in the state. Those who violate this ban are subject to arrest, something that the Russian government has no qualms about enforcing (case in point: the Pussy Riot arrests). This has led to further controversy, as while the IOC is assuring athletes that they will not be arrested, the Russian government has restated that this law will apply to even visiting athletes. Further complicating matters, Olympic broadcaster NBC is not entirely sure how to approach this issue as part of their coverage, leaving a pretty realistic chance that the issue is completely whitewashed out of their coverage, even if events dictate otherwise (it’s not like the network had the most sterling of reputations for their coverage after the much less controversial London games either).

It’s safe to say that we here at Manhattan Digest have a more enlightened approach towards such issues, and I feel like this situation lacks easy answers. Do I just ignore the whole situation, essentially using my silence like a de facto boycott like Harvey Fierstein advocated in the New York Times recently? Or will there still be extensive demand for normal coverage? Conversely, do I ignore the celebration aspect and take a more strictly journalistic tack, in which should something controversial or breaking happen that myself (or one of our writers) comment upon it? My gut feeling says to lean against scrubbing and sanitizing coverage, but I’d rather not blow off a large event if our readership demands/requests it.

Ultimately, I think it’s best that I get the input of not only Ryan, our editor-in-chief, but also that of our readers. Manhattan Digest is a site heavily driven by crowd sourcing, and I feel that in situations like this one it’s my responsibility to cater to the interests of our readers first and foremost. If you have a preference or a suggestion, please do not hesitate to comment below.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Michael Tyminski

TV Columnist/Reviewer

Manhattan Digest

Gay Rights in America: What will the Outcome be?

by Alex David Jimenez

With the unofficial start of summer having come and gone, June is quickly approaching. For those fighting in favor of gay rights a great and ominous question is now beginning to ruminate: What will be the Supreme Court’s rulings for the United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry cases argued at the end of March?

Edie Windsor & her late wife Thea Spyer © ACLU

Opinions are varied. Many will argue that the time of justice for the LGBT community is here. The United States cannot afford to further delay the institution of equality among varied sexual identities. By contrast, many have said the event of great change is well ahead of its time. While public opinion appears to suggest that America is leaning towards a more modern understanding of homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality and gender identity, therein remains the argument of morality. Morality, though relative, often wins, which suggests that while America is listening more, they don’t yet wholly accept it.

In New York, there has been a significant rise in crimes against the gay community – especially involving violent crimes against gay men. Several openly gay men, including activists and well-known members of the community, have been taunted with callous gay slurs and in some cases beaten, leaving them hospital-bound. In one case on May 17th a young man was in fact killed after being taunted by hate-mongering bullies for being gay. The word of homicide quickly spread through the community and put everyone on very high alert.

This rise in crime has been said to be a psychological backlash against the growing support for gay rights, including gay marriage. Twelve states have officially recognized gay marriage as legitimate and fully legal, including New York itself. This spread of success for the gay community has left those in its opposition with a sense of failure and fear that they are losing the battle. It can be said that fear breeds anger and hate, which is what we are seeing more prominently with every equal rights milestone.

Hollingsworth v. Perry plaintiffs Sandra B. Stier and Kristin M. Perry (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)

The Supreme Court’s official rulings for United States v. Windsor, which includes the upholding or the dismissal of DOMA, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, which includes the upholding or dismissal of California’s Proposition 8, are both expected at the end of June this year. What is to be expected?

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy © Wikipedia

Many experts say it could be a tight ruling. The liberal and conservative extremes among the collective justices do not seem to necessarily be playing a major role in the direction with which they lean. Many conservatives have been outspoken in favor of gay rights, while many liberals have argued against it. It has been implied as of recent that the swing vote could be Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Kennedy has been the swing vote for several cases in the recent past. Since the initial hearing in March, three U.S. states and three countries, including France, have passed gay marriage. It is certainly realistic that these landmark events have influenced Justice Kennedy, as well as others, in favor of striking down DOMA and Proposition 8 this June.

POLITICS

About the NYC Council Speaker

Real Estate Scandel Information

Footer