Tag Archives: Cnn

Protest planned at UC Berkeley for John Yoo’s first day of classes

BERKELEY — Demonstrators are planning a protest today as the UC Berkeley law school professor who gave legal sanction to the Bush administration's views on torture returns to the classroom for the new semester. The Boalt Hall School of Law class schedule lists courses, such as constitutional law, to be taught by John Yoo. Protesters have challenged Yoo's presence on campus because of legal memos he wrote that were instrumental in the development of military and CIA interrogation techniques that some consider to be torture. Activist Cindy Sheehan, CodePink's Medea Benjamin and several attorneys will speak to the press, demanding that Yoo be removed from his teaching post, disbarred and prosecuted on war crimes charges. Speakers will announce upcoming events to pursue their demands during the school year, including a week of protests and events in October. Yoo has said that the Bush administration did not authorize torture and that he did not consider waterboarding torture. The news conference will be held at noon on the Boalt Hall School of Law steps near Bancroft Way and College Avenue in Berkeley. A procession will follow around 12:30. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15794110?nclick_check=1 http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images/IMG_3073.JPG added by: pinkpanther

Amnesty Bill will mean Anarchy

This is from CNN it is not from FOX News. Obama and the Democrats are going too far now. http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/17260182/1610997888/name/ftc-vi26.wmv added by: ReverandG

Time’s Scherer Blames Press Pool for Obama’s Flipping and Flopping on Ground Zero Mosque

Michael Scherer of Time tried to explain the concept of  “Why Barack Obama Doesn’t Like to Chit-Chat with the Press Corps” — despite their obvious affection for him. The president’s first Ground Zero Mosque comments were “perfectly scripted,” he wrote, and perfectly timed, on a Friday night at a Muslim dinner celebrating Ramadan. Scherer doesn’t get that the venue could be controversial, considering Obama’s allergies to traditional Christian prayer breakfasts. But this “perfect” scenario was ruined by the White House press pool (specifically, CNN’s Ed Henry ): A reporter asked a stray question, and Obama blew all the careful planning of his staff. He varied from his initial remarks, creating a new narrative for a story the White House does not want to linger. Was he adding an asterisk to his remarks, as the Washington Post put it ? Was it a recalibration, as the New York Times put it ? In short, this is a communications disaster. The White House had to release a statement clarifying the new statement, or restatement, or whatever. The president’s opponents, who had been pushing the mosque issue for weeks as a way to get Democrats on the wrong side of the polls in an election year, came out celebrating. Liz Cheney, who can diminish just about any nuanced thought into a barbed cable news talking point , emailed Politico’s Mike Allen from her iPhone. “I guess President Obama was for the mosque before he was against it. You can quote me,” went the message. You can sense the creative tension between the lines for reporters like Scherer. They want their access to top officials, and yet in the Obama era, they very much want those top officials to achieve their “perfect” media calibrations, and not provide grist to nuance-diminishing conservative attack dogs. They think like campaign operatives — oh, shoot, Obama shouldn’t have talked to Ed Henry besides the jokes about whether he’d swim shirtless! Henry’s question was not a hardball, just an invitation for further reflection on the mosque controversy. Scherer added that a previous Obama gaffe murdered the chances for “comprehensive” immigration amnesty: Saturday’s gaffe represents the second time this year that an unscheduled chit chat with the press corps caused him big problems. In late April, he came to the back of Air Force One and said “there may not be appetite” for immigration reform, an admission dubbed by one reporter Obama’s “fatal flinch” that infuriated Senate leaders and Hispanic voters, and effectively ended any hope for the bill passing this year. Isn’t it possible that Obama didn’t fatally wound an amnesty bill, but that there really was no real public appetite for such a bill?

Excerpt from:
Time’s Scherer Blames Press Pool for Obama’s Flipping and Flopping on Ground Zero Mosque

Performing Animals Mistreated in China, Reports Animals Asia, an Animal Rights Campaign Group | Photos | Video

PLEASE be sure to look at the four photos, and when you get to the fourth photo, just imagine if that were you… or a child of yours… http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/12/china.performing.animals/index.html?… Performing animals mistreated in China, says report August 15, 2010 11:21 p.m. EDT (CNN) — Bears riding motorcycles, tigers jumping through flaming hoops and pigs leaping off diving boards. Just some of the “entertainment” that can be seen at circuses, zoos and safari parks in China, according to a report by Animals Asia into animals cruelty. The Hong Kong-based animal rights campaign group visited 13 safari parks and zoos in China and according to David Neale, Animals Asia's Animal Welfare Director, found that the animal shows “portray the animal to the public in a humiliating way” and have no educational value. “There is a misunderstanding really within China at the moment about what these animals are experiencing,” Neale told CNN. The report says that many of the performance animals that include tigers, lions, Asiatic black bears, elephants and monkeys are born and bred in captivity and brutalized throughout their lives. Video: Cruelty to performing animals “These animals have been suffering from birth, really. Once they're born they go into this industry. And straight away the trainers are starting to brutalize them to make them to do these tricks…. We saw some of the training of the younger animals; they were continually hit to make sure they learnt these tricks so that when they're out in the performance ring they perform them to the best standard.” “Once the trick is finished they then go to the backstage area where they're housed in the most shocking conditions. All kinds of animals are held in cages full of faeces, with very little access to water, very little access to food.” The abuse of performing animals isn't specific to China. “Animal cruelty is happening in every country across the world,” said Neale. However Neale points out that in China there are currently no animal protection laws, a reason why Animals Asia have worked with Chinese academics to draft legislation not just for animals in captivity, but all animals. Despite the findings of their investigation, Neale is encouraged by a few signs of progress by the Chinese government to take animal protection seriously. According to a government report on July 29 the Chinese State Forestry Administration accused companies that have animal performance shows of having excessive focus on profits, leading to the mistreatment and death of the animals. “We're very pleased that the Chinese government has said that they want the zoos and safari parks to look at the conditions they keep their animals in to rectify these problems,” said Neale. added by: EthicalVegan

Kurtz Does Lengthy Hurricane Katrina Segment Without Once Mentioning Bush

Is it possible for CNN to do a 7 1/2 minute segment about Hurricane Katrina without mentioning George W. Bush’s name? Given the media’s approaching five year obsession with blaming one of America’s largest natural disasters on a Republican president, it seems highly unlikely, doesn’t it? Yet that’s what happened on “Reliable Sources” Sunday when Howard Kurtz invited Harry Shearer on the program to talk about his new documentary “The Big Uneasy.” In it, Shearer claims the media badly missed the boat in their reporting of what caused the flooding in New Orleans (video follows with transcript and commentary): HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: But the other issue is the writing of the history as to why this happened and it could it happen again? Now, here, you zero in on the Army Corps of Engineers. You feel the mainstream media missed the mark, or is that overstating it? HARRY SHEARER: A, I don’t zero in. The people who did the investigations, the scientists and engineers who actually know what they’re talking about, zeroed in on the Army Corps of Engineers, four decades plus of malfeasance and misfeasance that led to this disaster. I think the national news media basically did take a walk away from that as the core of this story, that this was a manmade disaster. And that’s why I was led to make the movie, to sort of try to correct the record now five years on. KURTZ: Why do you think national journalists walked away from the story? I mean, in other words, was it just short attention span? Was it laziness? Or was it a failure to dig? SHEARER: Well, I think it’s all of those things. And again, I go back to this quote from this anchor person, that the emotional stories are what gets eyeballs. And this is deep stuff. I mean, I worried as I started to make this movie, I’m not taking people to engineering school. I can’t be an instructional film. I can’t — KURTZ: You’re not Al Gore standing up with the charts and the graphs. SHEARER: Right. What should jump out at readers and viewers alike is “four decades plus of malfeasance and misfeasance that led to this disaster.” Hmmm. Four decades. Wouldn’t that mean this disaster was caused by at least some  malfeasance that occurred before George W. Bush was in the White House? And wasn’t that a contention of many conservatives at the time: decades of malfeasance and corruption in New Orleans led to a levee system in a state of disrepair? But that didn’t fit the media template back then which was all about blaming Bush and anything that could possibly diminish this despicable accusation was verboten. Not surprisingly, five years later, Kurtz didn’t ask Shearer whether his research for this documentary uncovered anything that refuted the press’s claims that this disaster was all the 43rd President’s fault. By contrast, Bush’s name was mentioned seven times in a prior segment about how the media covered Michelle Obama’s Spanish vacation last week. Go figure. 

See the original post:
Kurtz Does Lengthy Hurricane Katrina Segment Without Once Mentioning Bush

Reader Scolds Washington Post: There Are No ‘Liberals’ on the Supreme Court

Crazies on the left allow journalists to see themselves as under siege from both sides of the spectrum, and thus must be playing it down the middle. To wit: Saturday’s Washington Post carried a letter from a reader upset the newspaper had reported the Supreme Court has “four firm liberals.” Robert B. McNeil Jr., of Alexandria, insisted “there hasn’t been even a single ‘liberal’ on the court in years.” He recommended: The Post should recognize philosophical reality and refer to the “moderate” and “conservative” wings of the court, although “moderate” and “radical-conservative” would be more accurate. McNeil’s ridiculous contention that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens are not liberal, headlined online “There are no ‘liberals’ on the Supreme Court” and in the real newspaper with the blander “Mislabeling the high court,” appeared on the “Free for All” page – an extra full page of letters run each week in the Saturday newspaper. The full letter in the Saturday, August 14 Washington Post: The Aug. 6 front-page story about the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan referred to “a court with four solid conservatives and four firm liberals.” This usage continued a long and an inaccurate tradition that I wish The Post would change. There are not “four firm liberals” on the Supreme Court, and there hasn’t been even a single “liberal” on the court in years. The Post should recognize philosophical reality and refer to the “moderate” and “conservative” wings of the court, although “moderate” and “radical-conservative” would be more accurate. Robert B. McNeil Jr., Alexandria

See more here:
Reader Scolds Washington Post: There Are No ‘Liberals’ on the Supreme Court

CNN’s Blitzer Presses Crist on Party Preference, ‘You Just Can’t Caucus with Yourself’

During on interview on Saturday’s The Situation Room with independent Florida Senate candidate and Governor Charlie Crist, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer pressed the former Republican to announce which party he would choose to caucus with if he is elected to the Senate, and brought up his current associations with Democrats and flip-flops toward more liberal positions. As Crist repeatedly tried to evade acknowledging the importance of being aligned with one of the two major parties to have influence, and the likelihood that he would ultimately choose to ally with one of the parties, Blitzer was persistent in pressing for an answer, at one point quipping: “You just can’t caucus with yourself, if you will, if you want to have some influence.” Crist eventually seemed to hint that his decision would depend on which party holds the majority after November: “And you’ve just hit on the pivotal issue really: What is in the best interests of the people of Florida? We don’t know who’s going to be in the majority November 2 nd after the general election. And so I think it’s important to keep an open mind, to stay committed only to one thing, and that’s the people of my state.” After playing a clip of Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio accusing Crist of moving toward President Obama politically, Blitzer noted: “But are you increasingly embracing the Obama agenda? Because he’s saying you flip-flopped on a whole lot of issues where you were a Republican, but now you’re siding with the Democrats, including President Obama.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Saturday, August 14, The Situation Room on CNN: WOLF BLITZER: All right, let’s talk a little bit about why you’re here in Washington. Among other reasons, obviously, you want to be in the Situation Room, our Situation Room- GOVERNOR CHARLIE CRIST (I-FL), LAUGHING: I came here to see you. BLITZER: -but tonight you’re going to a fundraiser and some prominent Democrats are hosting this fundraiser for you, including someone very close to the former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. What does that mean? Are you now a Democrat for all practical purposes? CRIST: I think it means we have broad support, and I’m very pleased by that. I mean, from Republicans, Democrats, independents. I think everybody has the notion and the idea that they would like an independent voice in the United States Senate fighting for Floridians first. And that’s what this is really all about – being independent, putting people above the party, and making sure that they have a voice in the Senate that’s an honest broker, looks out for their interests first. And Democrats and Republicans and independents want it. BLITZER: Are you getting more support now from Republicans or Democrats? CRIST: I’d say it’s pretty evenly split. I mean, you know, a lot of friends from the Republican party have stayed with us, continued to help, and God bless them for that. New Democrats who have become very good friends and some Democrats have been friend for a long time are just stepping up in a much more significant way now. BLITZER: The fundraiser tonight’s going to be basically Democrats, though? CRIST: That’s correct, it is. BLITZER: There are two independent U.S. Senators, as you know – Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. But they both caucus with the Democrats and the Democrats are in the majority. They have chairmanship committees and committee rankings and all of that. If you’re elected to the United States Senate, will you caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans? CRIST: I’ve always said that I’ll caucus with the people of Florida. And what I mean by that is, issue by issue, whatever’s in the best interests of the people of my state, my fellow Floridians, I want to be able to be with those that are going to help Florida. BLITZER: But you got to make a decision because, if you’re not going to be caucusing with one party or the other party, you’re not going to have any committee ranking, you’re not going to have any influence in the United States Senate. You’re going to have to make a major decision. CRIST: Well, if I have the honor of winning, I’ll have a vote in the United States Senate. BLITZER: You’ll have one vote, but if you’re chairman of the committee, if you caucus with the Democrats, chairman of a subcommittee, you could have some influence, so you’re going to have to decide whether to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. You just can’t caucus with yourself, if you will, if you want to have some influence. CRIST: Well, I got to keep my eye on the ball, and the eye on the ball for me means looking at November 2 nd. I’m not going to be a chairman of anything if I don’t get elected to the Senate first. So I have to continue to work hard, campaign hard, continue to strive to earn the trust and confidence of my fellow Floridians. BLITZER: So when the Democrats at the fundraiser tonight ask you, Charlie Crist, we’re going to give you money, they’ll say. Are you promising us you’ll be with Harry Reid and the Democrats assuming he gets re-elected in the United States Senate, you won’t go with Mitch McConnell and the Republicans? CRIST: I’m not going to commit to either one because I’m only committed to the people of Florida. BLITZER: So you’ll commit after, if you’re elected. Is that what you’re saying? CRIST: Probably. BLITZER: Because you’ll have to caucus, you’ll have to make that decision down the road. CRIST: Well, I don’t know that Wayne Morris did. I think he literally took a seat in the middle of the aisle, right? BLITZER: He didn’t. You’re right. You’re right on that. He didn’t. He took a seat in the middle, but, you know, then the people of Florida could suffer if you don’t have the influence that you would like to have. CRIST: And you’ve just hit on the pivotal issue really: What is in the best interests of the people of Florida? We don’t know who’s going to be in the majority November 2 nd after the general election. And so I think it’s important to keep an open mind, to stay committed only to one thing, and that’s the people of my state. BLITZER: Your Republican challenger, Marco Rubio, was here. He was sitting in that seat in the Situation Room just a little while ago on July 20. He said this: MARCO RUBIO, FLORIDA REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I don’t believe he’s really an independent. I think there’s increasing evidence that he now is embracing the Obama agenda. BLITZER: You heard what he said. CRIST: I heard what he said. BLITZER: You’re smiling. CRIST: Well, why wouldn’t I smile? BLITZER: But are you increasingly embracing the Obama agenda? Because he’s saying you flip-flopped on a whole lot of issues where you were a Republican, but now you’re siding with the Democrats, including President Obama. CRIST: Well, that’s what you’d expect him to say. He’s my opponent after all, one of them. And we don’t know who the other one’s gong to be yet until the primary concludes on August 24. So I look forward to that. I really do. And there will be distinctions between us on a lot of issues. But that’s the kind of thing you hear from a lot of the, you know, party candidates, if you will. They like to take shots at people. I’m not here to really do that today. I’m here to offer myself to the people of Florida as an independent voice who wants to rise above that kind of back-and-forth stuff that’s driving them crazy all over the country.

View original post here:
CNN’s Blitzer Presses Crist on Party Preference, ‘You Just Can’t Caucus with Yourself’

John King Asks Quayle: You Really Think Obama’s the Worst President Ever?

John King on Friday went after Arizona Congressional candidate Ben Quayle, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, for claiming in a campaign commercial that Barack Obama is the worst president in history. In case you missed it, Quayle released an ad (embedded right) on Wednesday saying that as a result of Obama’s policies, “my generation will inherit a weakened country.” As this has struck a nerve with Obama-loving media across the fruited plain, King asked his guest: You’re a Republican in a crowded 10-candidate Republican primary. So going after President Obama is not a surprise. But the worst president ever? He’s been in office less than two years. Not Nixon, not Harding, not anybody else? Why Barack Obama? After Quayle answered, King followed up by asking him about his postings to a “racy website, DirtyScottsdale.com” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOHN KING, HOST: A congressional race in Arizona is suddenly getting national attention and quite a bit of it. Partly because of a campaign ad that’s gone viral and partly because it’s from a candidate with a famous name. Ben Quayle, a Republican running in Arizona’s third district, joins me now to go “One-on-One.” And Ben Quayle, I want to get to this ad. First tell our viewers, if they don’t know, you’re the son of the former vice president Dan Quayle. You’re running for an open Republican seat in the Scottsdale-Phoenix area of Arizona. And the reason that you’ve generated such a national controversy is this ad. Let’s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BEN QUAYLE (R), ARIZONA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Barack Obama is the worst president in history. And my generation will inherit a weakened country. Drug cartels in Mexico, tax cartels in D.C. What’s happened to America? I love Arizona. I was raised right. Somebody has to go to Washington and knock the hell out of the place. (END OF VIDEO CLIP) KING: Now, you’re a Republican in a crowded 10-candidate Republican primary. So going after President Obama is not a surprise. But the worst president ever? He’s been in office less than two years. Not Nixon, not Harding, not anybody else? Why Barack Obama? QUAYLE: Well, John, this is a claim that — I’ve thought about long and hard. And it was something that I wasn’t happy about. But President Obama, through his ideology and his policies, has fundamentally changed our country for the worst. And I think that he’s taken a country, which was admittedly in bad shape, but he has made it worse and his policies are actually going to affect future generations in a negative way. And the future that he has created for my generation and other generations is pretty terrifying. It seems like right now he’s starting to destroy the American dream. KING: Now, because of what you’re saying in this ad, which is quite provocative, and because of who you are, there are a number of — shall we say — parodies of your ad already popping up online. Some of them are just funny and some of them are pretty pointed and they go right after you. I want you to listen to one of them from a standup comedian. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s why I want whatever job Ben Quayle had before he decided to run for Congress. I don’t know what it was, but I know I’ll be better at it than that schmuck. I love America and I was raised right. By which I mean neither of my parents ever forgot how to spell potato. (END OF VIDEO CLIP) KING: A chance to respond. I want to ask as you do — you’re getting a lot of attention because of this. Some of it’s not necessarily polite. But are you benefiting from it? QUAYLE: Well, you know, John, having the last name of Quayle, we’re used to being made fun of and has some parody and having things that aren’t true being said about you. So, you know, it stings but you know that’s the way that politics goes nowadays. KING: And as you know, many of your rivals there and many people who’ve covered politics for a — long time like myself say, well, why would he do this? And some people think you’re trying to change the subject because you’re in a bit of a dust-up of first saying no, that wasn’t me, and then acknowledging that you had submitted some postings to a pretty racy Web site, DirtyScottsdale.com. A, why did you say no when it was you? And B, why did you do it? QUAYLE: John, I have been consistent with my story from the beginning. The Web site that is currently smearing me is a despicable Web site. And I have had no affiliation with that Web site. This is a smear campaign that’s being pushed by one of my opponents. And, you know, it’s the type of gutter politics that we really are trying to get away from and the people here in CD-3 are sick of. I mean if you look at what’s happened since this commercial, it’s been 36 hours. We’ve had over 300,000 YouTube hits. This is the thing that people are looking at. The issues that President Obama is trying to take our country towards a social welfare state and that we need to get people into office who are actually going to combat that. That’s what people want to focus on. KING: Well, I won’t dispute that except I do want to be very clear. DirtyScottsdale.com. This is a quote from you, “I just posted comments to drive — try to drive some traffic.” You did post some things to DirtyScottsdale.com? QUAYLE: I posted a — this is what I’ve said from the beginning. I posted a few comments on a Web site that doesn’t exist anymore. They’re innocuous. And, you know, these are the types of smear campaigns that have been pushed against me about nothing. This is much ado about nothing and, you know — but since it’s a famous last name, people want to focus on that. So — but I’ll be tough and then I’m just going to be staying focused on the issues and focusing on bringing our country back from the brink right now. KING: Well, to a degree, you’re right about the criticism. And I want to read you something from one of your opponents, Pam Gorman. Again, there are 10 Republicans seeking this nomination. She says there’s 10 people in this race, there’s nine of us that may not agree on anything. But we all agree that it’s completely offensive that Dan Quayle is trying to buy his little boy a seat in Congress. How would you respond to that? QUAYLE: Well, that’s what I’ve been dealing with since day one on this campaign. They know that they can’t attack me on the issues because I’m — I have a much better future — vision for the future of our country. I know the issues better than they do and I have a better campaign right now than they do. And so they just attack me on that sort of things that doesn’t make any sense. So she can say what she wants, but in the end, we will take the nomination and move on to the general election. KING: You are in a state right now. Let’s talk about some of those issues. You’re in a state that is ground zero in the border security and immigration debate in the United States right now. You’ve written letters critical of the Obama administration, tried to nudge your former governor, Janet Napolitano, now the Homeland Security secretary. The president signed into law today a new border security measure, $600 million. He was already sending National Guard troops. This does a bit more beefing up the Border Patrol, beefing up customs and the like. Is it a positive step? QUAYLE: I believe it is a positive step. But we need more. We need more troops at the border. And we need them right now. We were supposed to get the National Guard troops on August 1st, and now it’s not going to be until the end of September. If you go down to our southern border and see what’s happening to the ranchers down there and see the devastation that happens from the drug cartels and the human smuggling, it’ll rip your heart out. It is absolutely impossible to not see the problems we have with the poorest border. KING: We speak on the 75th anniversary of Social Security. Just about everybody agrees if you’re going to deal with the deficit long term, structurally, you have to do something with the big entitlement programs. What would Ben Quayle recommend to do to change Social Security? QUAYLE: Well, with Social Security, we would protect those who are in or near retirement today. But for people of my generation and younger, we would actually have to reform it which would be to start to gradually increase the retirement age up to 70 and allow a portion of the people to allow — take a portion of their Social Security and actually invest it into private accounts. These sorts of things need to be done because our entitlement programs are unfunded liabilities related to those are between $16 and $100 trillion which will freeze out all other spending and eventually bankrupt our country. KING: Let me close where I began. The worst president in history. Nineteen months into office. You at the age of 33. You’re sure you can make that conclusion? QUAYLE: He — what he has done in a year and a half, he’s actually changed the country dramatically for the worse. More so than any president in our history. And I stand by my statement. KING: Ben Quayle is a candidate — Republican candidate for Arizona. Mr. Quayle, thanks for your time today. QUAYLE: Thank you. KING: Thank you. So King began with this issue, and ended with it. Hadn’t Quayle sufficiently answered King’s question the first time? Did it require a follow up minutes later? After all, you could make the case that Quayle’s position is premature considering Obama has been in office for less than nineteen months. However, this is a campaign ad, and candidates make all kinds of intentionally inflammatory remarks in such commercials; King should know that. Exit question: Would a Democrat have been questioned twice in such an interview about a campaign ad in which he or she called George W. Bush the worst president in history?

See the rest here:
John King Asks Quayle: You Really Think Obama’s the Worst President Ever?

CNN.com Plugs Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Magazine ‘Born of Frustration’

CNN continued its promotion of homosexual “marriage” with an online article on Thursday highlighting a new magazine for same-sex couples planning their ceremonies. Writer Shaunte Dunston used glowing language to describe the experiences of “Equally Wed’s” founders, as well as that of vendors who cater to the homosexual community. Dunston, a ” media coordinator ” for the cable network, began her CNN.com article, ” Same-sex bridal magazine born of frustration ,” with a flowery account of Kirsten Ott and Maria Palladino’s ceremony (the two founded “Equally Wed”). The two were the main subjects of the piece: Kirsten Ott walked down the aisle in a white strapless gown with an embroidered bodice and cascading ruffles . Maria Palladino, dressed in a white suit, waited for her at the end of the aisle with a minister. Surrounded by their family and close friends, the women committed to each other for the rest of their lives . A beautiful reception followed. It had all the makings of a traditional wedding , but instead of calling themselves bride and groom, the couple used the terms bride and “broom.” “Broom is a combination of bride and groom,” said Kirsten, who took Maria’s last name when they wed. The “broom’s” cake was a giant crab, Maria’s favorite sea animal. “It was gorgeous and realistic,” Kirsten said. “It actually stole the show from the wedding cake itself.” Both were relieved the special day they had planned for so long finally arrived . The writer didn’t mention when the event took place, but continued that ” organizing a wedding can be challenging , what with finding the right photographer, the perfect cake, the prettiest flowers and, most importantly, the venue. It was even harder for Kirsten, because she had to find vendors who accepted same-sex marriage in Atlanta, Georgia, where the union isn’t legally recognized .” Dunston spent the following six paragraphs quoting extensively from Ott about their apparent difficulties in finding cooperative vendors. In the midst of this, she added that “planning their wedding inspired the newlyweds to start their own wedding magazine geared toward engaged same-sex couples. Kirsten, a journalist, and Maria, a graphic designer, used their career backgrounds and personal experience to launch the online magazine Equally Wed.” Later in the article, the CNN writer cited from one homosexual-friendly vendor who makes rings, as well as from the “Equally Wed” founders, to portray same-sex “marriages” as no different than traditional marriage: Jeweler Rony Tennenbaum in New York designs wedding rings for same-sex couples. “Most of the time they are opposite in the likes and tastes. One might be aggressive, rugged and one wants classier,” Tennenbaum said. Tennenbaum also said it’s important to break same-sex wedding stereotypes . “It’s important not to make rings that a straight person might think a gay couple wants. Gay couples don’t need to wear triangles … it’s not about symbols, it’s about signifying love.”… “That’s kind of why we wanted to do Equally Wed. [It] was to showcase normal gay weddings for anybody that’s planning their own. It helps to have a model to look at, [to] help you feel like what you’re doing is OK,” Kirsten said. Maria said most gay weddings are similar to straight weddings , but there might be a question about which bride will walk down the aisle or which groom will propose. “Just some of the little things that come out in the details of planning.” On August 4, the day that a federal judge struck down California’s Proposition 8 as “unconstitutional,” CNN’s daytime coverage leaned heavily towards supporters of same-sex “marriage,” even going so far as to get immediate reaction from patrons of a “gay” bar in West Hollywood. Two month earlier, the network aired several pro-homosexual agenda segments as part of their promotion for their propagandistic “Gary and Tony Have a Baby” documentary .

Here is the original post:
CNN.com Plugs Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Magazine ‘Born of Frustration’

Prop 8 | California Judge Lifts Stay on Marriages | Same-Sex Couples Can Legally Wed Beginning August 18 2010 | Added Updates

THE NEW YORK TIMES BREAKING NEWS 3:44 PM ET Judge Says Ban on Gay Marriage Can End on Aug. 18 _____ CNN BREAKING NEWS Judge lifts temporary stay on same-sex marriage in California. Couples may wed beginning August 18. _____ LOS ANGELES TIMES BREAKING NEWS Judge keeps gay-marriage ruling on hold By Maura Dolan | 12:44 p.m. The federal judge who last week overturned the state's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, agreed to a continued hold on his ruling while foes appeal. added by: EthicalVegan