Tag Archives: culture/society

For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

As the anchor of MSNBC’s noon news hour, Contessa Brewer could not openly advocate for supporters of gay marriage – but she definitely seemed to give generous credence to their views on Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, she made snide comments about opponents of same-sex marriage, providing an opposition to their arguments but not seriously questioning proponents of same-sex marriage. Brewer obviously has strong views on this particular issue, and as a news anchor seems to have trouble keeping her personal opinions out of her news desk duties. In the little time allotted during each show to the same-sex marriage debate, Brewer hosted three pro same-sex marriage guests and none from the opposition. On Thursday, her guest was a retired female Presbyterian minister who is facing a church trial for conducting multiple gay marriages, having already been acquitted in 2008 before the Presbyterian Church (USA) Supreme Judicial Council. On Friday, Brewer hosted the two plaintiffs of the recent Proposition 8 court case, Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami – a homosexual couple hoping to marry soon. Brewer also marginalized the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents with snide remarks and loaded questions. “Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family,” she remarked on her Thursday news hour. “So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America?” When one of her viewers who opposes gary marriage wrote in that having two same-sex parents would “mess up the child development for life,” Brewer cynically quipped “I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.” On Friday, Brewer seemed to be pushing for a quick end to the stay on same-sex marriages in California, apparently using one of the Left’s favorite arguments in equating the current legal battles with the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s. “You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials,” she summarized. “So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied?” she asked, quoting the mantra of the civil rights movement. A transcript of both segments, which aired on August 12 and 13, is as follows: MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/12/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC anchor: A Presbyterian minister in [California] is facing charges from her own church. The authorities believe she violated the church rules by presiding over the weddings of gay couples. Her trial begins later this month in Napa, California, and Rev. Jane Spahr joins me now. Reverend, it’s good to talk to you today. Rev. JANE SPAHR: Thank you, Contessa. Great to be here. BREWER: You have been through this before in 2008, when you were acquitted, I understand, from marrying a lesbian couple. So what’s this renewed fight about in the Presbyterian church? SPAHR: Well the renewed fight is really about all these marriages that I did with so many of my friends who – they’re legal. They were from those dates from June 17th to November 4th in which the state has said “Yes, all these are legal.” So it’s been an amazing time to be able to marry so many of my wonderful friends. BREWER: What’s the official stance of the Presbyterian Church on same-sex marriage? SPAHR: Well there really isn’t a stance yet, there hasn’t been a ruling on that, so what it is, I think for me, is, as pastors, we should be able to marry the people who come to us, and that is, for me, I take over a year to meet with couples, to work with them, to talk with them about their love, and it’s been an amazing time to be able to do that. So what I say to people, “It doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is. It matters to me that you have a healthy, just, loving, mutual relationship. So that’s why I meet with couples. So I say “It doesn’t matter to me.” What matters to me is that the church could be there to help people have the healthiest, most loving relationships. BREWER: Given your stand on this, and given that you have been a long-time advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, do you think that you’re a good fit with the Presbyterian Church? SPAHR: Well I think every church has the opportunity to become open and welcoming, to really follow the founder of our Church, which said, “You all come, and be, and be who you are, and love who you are.” When people love who they are, then they can be free to serve in such a healthy and wonderful way. So I think it’s time for the churches to say “Welcome home.” BREWER: But given how many people base their opposition to gay rights on religious or moral principles, what would you say to them, and what would you expect to happen in this trial? Again, it’s a church trial, coming up later this month. SPAHR: Well again, people will be able to hear the stories of some 11 couples, be able to hear about their love, and to be able to know that we too are people of faith. We too are faithful people. We too care. My friends, Sarah and Sherry, the first couple that was ever named, I’ve been with them through all the things they’re bearing, their fathers, being with them to see their daughters raised, so it’s for people to see us as they really are. (…) 12:05 BREWER: Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family. So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America? (…) 12:52 BREWER: And Terrance thinks differently. He says “I believe if a child is raised around two fathers or two mothers that will mess up the child development for life.” I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.   MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/13/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER: In the meantime, good Friday the 13th. I’m Contessa Brewer, covering the big news, coast to coast. And on the West Coast, a massive tug-of-war is erupting over the gay marriage fight in California. Opponents want a federal appeals court to act now, before a hold on those weddings expires. …there will be mass confusion about whether the couples are indeed legally married. The judge’s decision to hold off ’till next week not going over well with some. (Video Clip) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’ve been here for two hours this morning, and we’ve watched so many straight people walk in and get married in front of us. It’s so “in your face,” that once again, “no you can’t.” (End Video Clip) (…) 12:01 BREWER: You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials. So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied? (…) 12:02 BREWER: Joining me now, Paul Katami, Jeff Zurrillo. They are the plaintiffs in the case to overturn Proposition 8. Gentlemen, good to see you. Let me ask you that question. Do you think justice delayed is justice denied? JEFF ZARRILLO: Martin Luther King said it very well, in his letters to Birmingham, justice delayed is justice denied, and that’s exactly what’s happening here.   BREWER: Do you have – do you think optimistic feelings about what happens now with the appeals court? Paul, weigh in. PAUL KATAMI: We’re absolutely optimistic. We know that we put on a fair and balanced court case. We won on the merits of that case, so now the law is on our side. We know that history is on our side, so it’s just a matter of getting to that finish line and we’re very confident we’ll get there. BREWER: You know, it’s interesting that the opponents who have filed the suit, guys, say that the judge’s decision that said voters made this Proposition 8 based on anti-gay morality, they said the judge’s statement was cruel because the people of California have actually enacted into law some of the nation’s most sweeping, most progressive protections of gays and lesbians. Do you feel protected in California? ZARRILLO: It’s really not about feeling protected as much as it is about separate, yet unequal, and that’s what we are, we are a separate yet unequal category. We are second-class citizens in the state of California. And what we really are looking for is just our equal rights, just like every other American is afforded at birth, according to our Constitution. KATAMI: I think it’s important to remember also that we’re not trying to create a new law or import a law into our Constitution. This was a law that was found in our Constitution, and so we are just trying to reiterate that that law belongs to us fundamentally, so it’s important to remember that our Constitution actually has this law in it. And we’re just wanting it to be applied to us. BREWER: Alright, gentlemen. Jeff, Paul, thank you both. I appreciate your time.

See original here:
For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

Henry Rollins Knows What’s Wrong with American Education – and Guess Who’s to Blame

On the heels of a new College Board report that the United States is struggling to compete with other countries when it comes to college completion rates, Vanity Fair’s resident straight talker, Henry Rollins, has figured out the problem.  The education system isn’t struggling because of possible factors contained within the report, such as: Inadequate funding of preschool programs Poor college counseling programs for middle and high school aged children High school dropout rates A lack of international standardization for curriculum Skyrocketing costs of education No, Henry has stumbled onto the real, super secret reason why students are failing to finish their college work:  Sarah Palin and George Bush .  To be accurate, it’s not so much the direct fault of Palin and Bush – rather, it is those of you who support them, their stupid comments, and their intellectually uninterested ways.  Their fans see them as real people and because of that, they feel comfort in an unchallenging environment. Rollins explains why ‘America doesn’t seem to value a college education the way it used to’: “…in America the educated person is often seen as some sissified, fragile know-it-all who looks down at the common man. Every time Sarah Palin says something stupid, she gets more fans. To them, she is “real.” It’s the same reason why so many Americans loved George Bush. They saw themselves in this intellectually uninterested man and found comfort in such an unchallenging environment.” Worse, Rollins somehow manages to immediately transition into a Hitler reference.  In explaining that Americans seem to express disdain for the educated person (via leaders such as Palin and Bush), he then goes on to say: “What leaders had contempt for educated people?  Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, to name a few.” And “Funny how the very idea of increased education opportunities threatens some Americans.  They will tell you that education is stupid.” And “America’s abysmal report card, appalling treatment of teachers, and hostile contempt for its young people should be our national shame, the sub-literate albatross swinging from our collective neck.  America No. 1?  Not even close.” Now, before you go accusing Mr. Rollins of being a liar, a liar, a liar, a liar , it is important to note that Henry speaks from experience, having come from a very thorough, college-educated background himself.  However, in this case anyway, it is apparent that Palin and Bush weren’t the cause of at least one American quitting college.   Rollins dropped out of American University following a very brief stint (one semester) in the late ‘70’s.  Citing reasons such as boredom, and the fact that his classmates would rather study beer and bongs than read books, Rollins instead pursued his musical career. Seems he is partially correct.  There are some individuals out there who look at college experience with contempt, threatened by education because it is, in a word, stupid.  By way of contrast, Sarah Palin earned a Bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Idaho.  Oh, and that intellectually uninterested guy we mentioned earlier?  He earned a history degree from Yale University in 1968, and is the only President to have ever earned a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Harvard Business School. Make no mistake, Henry Rollins is an incredibly intelligent, well-read, real-world educated person, and Vanity Fair is wise in giving him an outlet.  But traipsing into the world of liberal lunacy (Palin and Bush Derangement Syndrome) clouds any argument one can make.  In this case, Rollins opines that education suffers because of uneducated people who have a better education than himself.  The result is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. In other words, he is the Wrong Man for this debate. – Rusty welcomes comments/feedback at Weiss.Rusty@gmail.com .

See the rest here:
Henry Rollins Knows What’s Wrong with American Education – and Guess Who’s to Blame

CBS ‘Early Show’: Nearly Five Minutes on Gay Marriage Ruling, One Sentence to Critics

In a report on Friday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent John Blackstone described the fallout of a decision by California Judge Vaughn Walker to lift his stay on gay marriages after overturning Proposition 8: “Inside San Francisco City Hall dozens of same-sex couples lined up for marriage licenses, anticipating their wedding day.” A headline on screen declared: “Save the Date.”   Blackstone explained how gay couples were still upset that the stay would not be lifted until August 18: “Despite a celebration here, these advocates know this may be just a temporary opening. And it turned out it wasn’t opened yet….Among the disappointed couples was one of those who filed the lawsuit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage.” Finally taking note of critics of the initial Proposition 8 ruling and the lifting of the stay, Blackstone remarked: “The delay gives opponents time to appeal and a political issue.” The only sound bite of a critic was that of Maggie Gallagher from the National Organization for Marriage: “The extreme nature of this decision is, in fact, going to impact the elections in 2010.” Blackstone then concluded his report this way: “Polls show a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but in California, where there were 18,000 such marriages two years ago, plenty of wedding plans are now being made for next week.” He made no mention of the majority of Californians also being opposed. Following Blackstone’s report, co-host Harry Smith spoke with liberal George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley about the issue. While Turley described the judge’s decision as “very controversial,” he also made sure to tell viewers where he stood: “I actually support same-sex marriage.” Smith was puzzled by the delay in allowing gay marriage: “Why would the judge leave – well, open the window and then say, ‘okay, we’re going to close the window until next Wednesday’?” Turley replied: “Well, he’s actually doing a very standard and responsible thing….This is a controversial decision. And for the people on the other side of this debate, they should be entitled to make their argument to the court of appeals.” Later, Turley assured his fellow gay marriage supporters that allowing Judge Walker’s decision to be appealed would “add legitimacy to his opinion.”                              Here is a full transcript of the August 13 segment: 7:00AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Save the date. A California judge says same-sex couples will have to wait one more week to get married, allowing for an appeal to move forward. We’ll tell you why this could end up going all the way to the Supreme Court.         7:01AM SEGMENT HARRY SMITH: We begin with the court room battle over California’s same-sex marriage ban, the federal judge that threw that ban out now says that same-sex weddings can be held next week, unless higher courts get involved. CBS News correspondent John Blackstone has the story. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Save the Date; Judge Delays Same-Sex Weddings to Allow Appeal] JOHN BLACKSTONE: Inside San Francisco City Hall dozens of same-sex couples lined up for marriage licenses, anticipating their wedding day. Outside, a crowd gathered. The judge, who last week ruled that California’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, said he is lifting the stay he placed on that decision. Same-sex marriage in California has been on a roller coaster, sometimes legal, sometimes not. Despite a celebration here, these advocates know this may be just a temporary opening. And it turned out it wasn’t opened yet. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The good news is the stay is lifted. The bad news is the judge has said it’s lifted next Wednesday. CROWD: Aww. BLACKSTONE: Among the disappointed couples was one of those who filed the lawsuit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage. JEFF ZARRILLO: We’re hopeful that we will be able to get married and we’ll be able to announce wedding plans as soon as possible. BLACKSTONE: The delay gives opponents time to appeal and a political issue. MAGGIE GALLAGHER [NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE]: The extreme nature of this decision is, in fact, going to impact the elections in 2010. BLACKSTONE: Polls show a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but in California, where there were 18,000 such marriages two years ago, plenty of wedding plans are now being made for next week. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco. SMITH: And joining us now from Washington is George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. Good morning, sir. JONATHAN TURLEY: Hi, Harry. SMITH: Why would the judge leave – well, open the window and then say, ‘okay, we’re going to close the window until next Wednesday’? TURLEY: Well, he’s actually doing a very standard and responsible thing. What he’s doing is he’s giving the court of appeals a short period of time to review his decision and decide whether they want to impose a stay. Most federal judges will do that. In fact, if he didn’t do that, it’d be viewed as a little bit odd, if not aggressive towards the court of appeals. What he’s saying is, ‘look, I’m one judge. This is a controversial decision. And for the people on the other side of this debate, they should be entitled to make their argument to the court of appeals.’ SMITH: So what is the likelihood, then, a court of appeals would get involved in this by Wednesday? TURLEY: Well, they’re going to have to. I mean, they’re going to have to take a look at whether they want to impose a stay. And’s it’s going to be tempting for some of those judges. You know, this did overturn a majority of people who voted on the proposition. It’s a very controversial decision. Some judges might be inclined to say, ‘You know what? Let’s go ahead and stay this until other judges have looked at it.’ But what Judge Walker said in this opinion was I don’t see the irreparable harm being done to people by allowing people to get married. SMITH: Right. TURLEY: And he gave a very strong opinion saying, I don’t think this should be stayed by the Ninth Circuit. SMITH: If you are a proponent of same-sex marriage, how should you interpret this? TURLEY: I would encourage my friends on that side – and I actually support same-sex marriage – but I would encourage people on the side of same-sex marriage to understand that they benefit, in some regards, with – from Judge Walker’s move. He’s going to add legitimacy to his opinion. It’s not going to be just one judge. It’s important for this to be reviewed, to satisfy all parties that it’s not just one judge making his own decision, but that it’s going to be other judges making independent decisions of their own. SMITH: Right. Since this thing came down people have said this is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. Do you agree? TURLEY: Well, you know, as you know, you’ve been around a long time, it’s dangerous to predict when the court will accept something. They have actually avoided the same-sex marriage issue in the past, but if any case has a chance, it would be this one. By my count, there seems to be four justices on both sides of this issue, if you’re going to make an early prediction. And as usual, Justice Kennedy’s right in the middle. But Kennedy has been very sympathetic towards gay rights in the past. So, it would be a very interesting issue to go before this court at this time. SMITH: Jonathan Turley, we sure do appreciate your expertise this morning. Thank you very much. TURLEY: Thanks, Harry. SMITH: Alright, you bet.

More:
CBS ‘Early Show’: Nearly Five Minutes on Gay Marriage Ruling, One Sentence to Critics

Of All People: Schultz Slams Chris Christie With Fat Jokes

What’s next: Bill Clinton cutting an ad vexing David Vitter on the issue of fidelity? Of all people, Ed Schultz spent an entire segment this evening going after Chris Christie . . . about his girth. I counted no fewer than seven separate barbs that Schultz directed Christie’s way over his weight.  He began with a photo of the NJ Governor with the graphic “Battle of the Bulge.”   It got heavier from there. “This morning, Beckster [Glenn Beck] had some sizeable praise for the job-cutting governor.” “On his radio program, Laura Ingraham backed him up with this hefty endorsement .” ” Christie’s couch-potato lifestyle .” “Chris Christie is a guy who makes the middle-class, the poor and schoolkids pay for his fat-cat buddies to keep their living high on the hog lifestyle.” “To say he’d be a good president? That would be some pretty hefty Psycho Talk.” Schultz seems to have a penchant for throwing stones from deep within a glass house.  As I reported here yesterday, after Ed mocked Karl Rove for a brief stumble in giving the call-in number while guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh, Schultz proceeded to butcher the pronunciation of a guest’s name.  Tonight, the significantly un-svelte Schultz taunts Chris Christie over his weight.  Why would Ed want to highlight his own hypocrisy?  When Christie’s opponent in the NJ gubernatorial race, then-incumbent governor Jon Corzine, ran an ad taunting Christie over his avoirdupois, it famously blew up in his face .  Is Ed sure he wants to go down the same losing road?

Read more here:
Of All People: Schultz Slams Chris Christie With Fat Jokes

CNN Sides Heavily With Opponents of Proposition 8

On Wednesday, CNN’s daytime coverage of a federal judge’s decision on California’s Proposition 8 leaned mostly towards those who opposed the voter-approved amendment to the state’s constitution, which banned same-sex marriage. When the judge’s ruling was released, which found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, the network went so far to get immediate reaction to the ruling at a “gay” bar in West Hollywood . Don Lemon was the first CNN anchor to bring on guests on the issue 15 minutes into the 12 noon Eastern hour, none other than Gary Spino and Tony Brown, the two subjects of their pro-homosexual parenting documentary ” Gary and Tony Have a Baby .” Minutes before the two appeared, the network replayed a glowing report by senior political analyst Gloria Borger , which originally aired on June 16, profiling Ted Olson and David Boies who are fighting to overturn Prop 8. Lemon began his interview of the same-sex couple with a softball question: “So listen, Gary, I want to get you in here. Are you- h ow are you guys feeling? Are you anxiously awaiting this judge’s decision, or what- is it just something that’s in the back of your minds now? ” He asked a similar question of Brown: ” Are you feeling anxiety about this? ” Later in the interview, the CNN anchor did propose some tougher questions: “Well, Tony, the opposition says seven million people in California- seven million citizens, voters- voted for Proposition 8, which was against gay marriage. So why go against the wishes of the voters? ” Lemon even closed the interview by bringing up one of the motivating factors of those who are against same-sex marriage. Spino actually answered this question very candidly: LEMON: Gary, with anything, there is compromise- with anything. Do you see the other side? Do you see the fear? Do you understand that some people have been brought up a certain way and have certain religious beliefs, and may necessarily- may not necessarily go along with your lifestyle and the lifestyle of millions of Americans around the country, and believe that gay marriage should not be legal? SPINO: Well, here’s my thought on the subject- religion is learned. I was born this way, so I don’t have a lot of patience for that, because you’re basically taught what your parents or your grandparents- it’s a learned thing. But- you know, I was born this way. You’re not born with religion . Eight minutes later, the CNN anchor brought on Tony Perkins of the social conservative organization the Family Research Council. By contrast, Lemon didn’t wait long to become confrontational with his guest, starting with his second question: LEMON: So, I’ll ask you the other side. The people who are for same-sex marriage, who don’t want Proposition 8, would say, what’s wrong with that, if it is what the- if it is upholding the Constitution? What’s wrong with that? PERKINS: Well, first off, there is nothing in the Constitution under civil rights. Civil rights was put into the Constitution based upon racial equality, which, by the way, was adopted by the states. It was done the right way. Now, you- there’s no way you can convince anyone that 100 years ago, when that amendment was adopted, that that pertained to someone’s sexual behavior. There’s no way to make that case. I think this is- LEMON: All men are created equal, endowed by the rights of their creator? PERKINS: …[I]f you look at the 10th Amendment, unless the Constitution speaks specifically to an issue, it’s reserved to the states, and that’s exactly what California did, and that’s exactly what California’s court upheld, that the right- that the people had the right to, in fact, defend the definition of marriage. That’s what they did. This is another approach. LEMON: Okay. The reason I said all men are created equal- and we can go on. We can talk about the 14th Amendment. That’s been debated. Some people want to change it now when it- talking about it when it comes to immigration. But if two people who want to be together think- feel that they should have the same rights as the people next door who are heterosexual- under the American Constitution, regardless of what you believe about religion or about sex, or what have you, what is wrong with those two people abiding by the Constitution- paying taxes- having the same rights under our Constitution as everyone else? What is wrong with that? What is the argument against that? PERKINS: Well, Don, that’s a good question, because, actually- you know, two people do not have those rights. Under the Constitution- LEMON: Well, heterosexual or straight people do have those rights. PERKINS: No, they don’t. You don’t have- two people don’t have the right to marry whoever they want. There are restrictions. The states- this is an issue reserved to the states. Lemon spent the rest of the interview pressing his guest with this pro-same-sex “marriage” argument. Just under four hours later, 10 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour of CNN’s Rick’s List, correspondent Dan Simon, reporting live from outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco where the Prop 8 ruling was decided, interviewed Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac, a “married” lesbian couple who were opposed to Proposition 8. Simon led his interview by repeating the argument of the pro-Prop 8 side that “will of the majority has the right to decide this issue” and asked them for their take on this, but followed up with two softball questions: ” When you got married a couple of years ago, explain how that changed the dynamic of your relationship .” He then asked, ” We know this is just one stop- that, ultimately, it’s going to go to the appeals court, and then to the Supreme Court. But today- how important is today to you? What’s going through your mind? ” Later that hour, anchor Rick Sanchez read Tweets from four opponents of Prop 8, including lesbian TV host Ellen DeGeneres and Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley, with none from the opposing side [see right]. The decision from federal judge Vaughn Walker came down that hour, and CNN saw it fit to send correspondent Ted Rowlands to “The Abbey,” a “gay” bar in West Hollywood, California, whose slogan is ” 20 years and still raising the gay bar ,” as he noted during his live reporting. After Judge Walker’s ruling came out, Rowlands interviewed some of the bar’s clientele, who, as he earlier admitted, have “a vested interest” with the issue. As you might expect, all of those interviewed by the CNN correspondent applauded the ruling [see video of the report from Real Clear Politics ]. ROWLANDS: We’re at The Abbey, which is an institution- a gay bar that’s been around for 20 years , and people here are just starting to get the word. Your initial reaction? We were talking earlier about this whole thing, and now that it’s come down, what do you think? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it’s excellent. It’s an overruling of an overruling. It’s back to where the law should be. I think it’s a gay issue, and I think- I know everywhere in the world- everyone in this country can vote, but I think it’s a gay issue, and I think that heterosexual people should defer to the homosexual population, and say, what do you guys want to do? And that’s what we want to do, so- ROWLANDS: All right. Well, I don’t know that that will ever happen, but everybody will have a vote. These folks have just found out the news as well. You’re from San Francisco. Your thoughts? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it’s great- you know, the more we can do to get marriage recognized legally- equality, the more we can do for equality on a legal level- on a federal level, is great. So, as this goes forward, I hope it just gets better. ROWLANDS: A lot of same-sex couples, obviously, in this area of Los Angeles, Rick, and so there’s a lot of interest in this area. Your thoughts? A lot of people have been talking- a lot of people were very pessimistic, Rick, before we got this decision. But- boy, at this time, it looks like the federal courts, at least, agree with the idea of same-sex marriage, or, at least, agree that it should not be banned by the state of California . UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right. No, it’s huge. I’m super-excited. It’s a step in the right direction- like, we just need to keep moving forward with it. I mean, it shouldn’t even be an issue, and the fact we have to have these conversations are sad, but this is really great news. ROWLANDS: All right- initial reaction, Rick- it’s a bit tempered, as we talked about before. Everybody is well aware of the fact that this is the first step in a long process, likely going to the Supreme Court. But you can bet there will be a lot of celebrating here, right in this area, at least tonight as word travels . During The Situation Room, CNN went live to speeches during the 5 pm Eastern hour by Chad Griffin of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, one of the plaintiffs in the case arguing against Proposition 8, and Ted Olsen himself, both of whom praised Judge Walker’s decision. Perkins returned for a second interview, this time by anchor Wolf Blitzer, during the 6 pm Eastern hour. Blitzer was far less confrontational with the FRC president during the segment than his colleague Lemon. A transcript of his questions on the issue: BLITZER: Let’s get some reaction now from Tony Perkins- he’s president of the Family Research Council. He’s joining us on the phone- not a good day for what you stand for, Tony. Tell us your immediate reaction- what happens now? … BLITZER: So, obviously, you are going to see what happens in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s considered, as you well know, a pretty liberal court of appeals. So eventually, though, it will get up to the Supreme Court. I guess you agree with that? PERKINS: Yeah, I don’t think there’s any question that it’s going to end up in the Supreme Court. Look, Ted Olson is a very smart guy- probably one of the best constitutional lawyers in the country- BLITZER: And he is a conservative Republican?… BLITZER: But you assume [that] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold the district court’s decision today?… BLITZER: We’re just getting in, Tony, a statement from the White House . The spokesman there issuing this statement on behalf of the White House- I’ll read it to you and to our viewers: ‘ The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8, because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans’- lesbians, gays, bisexuals, trans-gender Americans. You got a problem with that White House reaction? … Throughout the day, CNN’s on-screen graphics also indicated the network’s slant towards same-sex “marriage.” The homosexual activist movement’s rainbow flag was featured prominently throughout the day (see screen cap above). Also, prior to the ruling, CNN.com’s article on the judge’s decision featured a photo of an anti-Prop 8 sign (see right). Overall, CNN’s Wednesday coverage of the court decision is a continuation of their pro-homosexual agenda segments from earlier in June when they were promoting their “Gary and Tony Have a Baby” documentary.

Excerpt from:
CNN Sides Heavily With Opponents of Proposition 8

CNN’s Feyerick Plays Hardball With Ground Zero Mosque Developer

On Wednesday’s Newsroom, CNN correspondent Deborah Feyerick refreshingly asked the developer behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero many hard questions. Feyerick bluntly asked Sharif el-Gamel, “Why not have a prayer space for Buddhists or Jews or Christians… why must it be Muslim? ” The correspondent even brought up how one of the landing gear of one of the planes ended up on the site of the planned mosque . Feyrick conducted her hardball interview of el-Gamel at his New York City office. The CNN correspondent almost immediately launched into her prayer space question. When the real estate developer initially replied, “There are Jewish community centers all over the country,” Feyerick interrupted with a sharp retort: ” But the Jews didn’t take down two towers .” El-Gamel continued that “there are YMCA’s all over the country,” but she gave a similar reply: ” But the Christians didn’t take down two towers .” The journalist followed up with the issue of the planned mosque’s proximity to the Ground Zero and mentioned the plane wreckage that ended up on the site: ” For those who are so- still sensitive and so raw to this, their question- their overriding question is, why here? Why so close? It’s two blocks, but it was close enough that landing gear ended up on the roof. Why? ” Later in the segment, Feyerick mentioned the recent confrontational zoning meeting where supporters and opponents of the mosque faced off and quoted from one of the opponents who used a historical parallel: ” Coming out of that hearing, somebody said, ‘The Japanese would never have dared to build on Pearl Harbor.’ What makes this different? ” Towards the end of the segment, the CNN correspondent asked el-Gamel if he planned to make sure Islamic extremism stays out of the “Islamic community center” and if they would reject funding from Islamist sources: “Can you guarantee that this center will r oot out extremism or completely reject any extremists that try to get into it?…Will you reject any money that comes…from any person, any country, any organization… that has any links to terrorism ? Will you be doing due diligence ?” In her final question, Feyerick asked the developer to directly address a key claim by the opponents of the mosque: ” For those who would say, this is not an olive branch to greater understanding, this is more an act of defiance- how would you answer those people? ” The full transcript of correspondent Deborah Feyerich’s interview of Sharif el-Gamel, which aired 47 minutes into the 12 pm Eastern hour of Wednesday’s Newsroom program: FREDERICKA WHITFIELD: Some say plans to build an Islamic center and mosque near 9/11’s Ground Zero disrespects the victims of the attacks. Others say that attitude is bigoted and intolerant. CNN’s Deborah Feyerick spoke with the developer of the project to get his thoughts. DEBORAH FEYERICK: This is where you sort of conceived of the idea? SHARIF EL-GAMEL, SOHO PROPERTIES: Yes, it is. FEYERICK (voice-over): Meet New York real estate developer Sharif el-Gamel, the man at the center of a controversial plan a stone’s throw from the World Trade Center site. EL-GAMEL: This is an Muslim-led project. This is an Islamic community center that will cater to all of New York. There’s gym and basketball courts. FEYERICK: Plans include a performing arts center, swimming pool, child care facilities, and yes, a Muslim prayer space two blocks from the worst terror attack in U.S. history. FEYERICK (on-camera): Why not have a prayer space for Buddhists or Jews or Christians or- why must it be Muslim? It can’t just be a business decision. EL-GAMEL: There are Jewish community centers all over the country. There are Y- FEYERICK: But the Jews didn’t take down two towers. EL-GAMEL: There are YMCA’s all over the country- FEYERICK: But the Christians didn’t take down two towers. EL-GAMEL: And this is- and this is a need that exists. FEYERICK: For those who are so- still sensitive and so raw to this, their question- their overriding question is, why here? Why so close? It’s two blocks, but it was close enough that landing gear ended up on the roof. Why? EL-GAMEL: There is a need. It’s supply and demand. The community wants it. The politicians are supporting it. FEYERICK (voice-over): Maybe, but many who attended a town hall meeting recently were dead set against it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have we forgotten what happened at 9/11? EL-GAMEL: What happened that day is not Islam. What happened that day is terrorism. FEYERICK (on-camera): Coming out of that hearing, somebody said, ‘The Japanese would never have dared to build on Pearl Harbor.’ What makes this different? EL-GAMEL: If you were at that hearing the way that I was at that hearing, you come out understanding that there is a great need for dialogue now. FEYERICK (voice-over): El-Gamel says many people don’t understand Islam. But does that make it Islamophobia? EL-GAMEL: One hundred percent. FEYERICK (on-camera): Why? EL-GAMEL: Because the moderate voice of Islam is not coming out. FEYERICK: Can you guarantee that this center will root out extremism or completely reject any extremists that try to get into it? EL-GAMEL: One hundred percent- we will not tolerate extremism. We will not tolerate extremism. FEYERICK (voice-over): And yet, critics say the religious leader, Iman Faisal Abdul Rauf, has links to groups that support terror. EL-GAMEL: Imam Faisal is one of the most moderate Muslims that exists in this country today. FEYERICK (on-camera): Will you reject any money that comes, either directly or indirectly, from any person, any country, any organization, any corporation, that has any links to terrorism? Will you be doing due diligence? EL-GAMEL: We are going to be doing extreme due diligence, and we are going to hire the best security experts in the country to help us walk through the process, and we plan on being very transparent throughout the whole process. FEYERICK: For those who would say, this is not an olive branch to greater understanding, this is more an act of defiance- how would you answer those people? EL-GAMEL: This is an olive branch. FEYERICK: El-Gamel points out there are more than a million Muslims in the tri-state area, and that the American Muslim consumer spends nearly $200 billion a year. So, when he talks about this center as a business, it certainly is that. He also says he wants his two young daughters to have a place where they can feel a sense of cultural and religious pride and belonging- where everyone can learn and share in the mainstream Muslim experience. Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.

Read the original post:
CNN’s Feyerick Plays Hardball With Ground Zero Mosque Developer

Bernie Goldberg on Schieffer’s Ignorance of Black Panther Case: Media Elites Are Living in Their Own Dying World

NYT’s Friedman Defends CNN’s Nasr and Hezbollah Founder Fadlallah, the Alan Alda of the Middle East

Tom Friedman stepped into a journalistic controversy in his Sunday New York Times column, ” Can We Talk? ” protesting CNN’s firing of senior editor of Middle East affairs Octavia Nasr for posting this message on Twitter upon the death of Hezbollah founder Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah: Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot. According to Western intelligence, Fadlallah blessed the drivers of the vehicles behind the 1983 attacks on Marine barracks in Beirut which killed 241 Marines. President Clinton froze his assets in 1995 because of his suspected involvement with terrorists. Yet Friedman was dismayed by Nasr’s dismissal by CNN: I find Nasr’s firing troubling. Yes, she made a mistake. Reporters covering a beat should not be issuing condolences for any of the actors they cover. It undermines their credibility. But we also gain a great deal by having an Arabic-speaking, Lebanese-Christian female journalist covering the Middle East for CNN, and if her only sin in 20 years is a 140-character message about a complex figure like Fadlallah , she deserved some slack. She should have been suspended for a month, but not fired. It’s wrong on several counts. Friedman’s omission of the killing of the Marines is especially odd considering he used the massacre to insult Ronald Reagan in an exchange with then-GOP presidential candidate Lamar Alexander in a March 5, 1995 appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. Friedman downplayed Fadlallah’s hatred of Israel, never mentioning the phrase “suicide bombers” and saying only that he “had some dark side.” I’ve never met Octavia Nasr or Fadlallah. Fadlallah clearly hated Israel, supported attacks on Israelis and opposed the U.S. troops in Lebanon and Iraq. But he also opposed Hezbollah’s choking dogmatism and obedience to Iran; he wanted Lebanon’s Shiites to be independent and modern, and he built a regional following through his social commentaries. …. Of course, Fadlallah was not just a social worker. He had some dark side. People at CNN tell me Nasr knew both. But here’s what I know: The Middle East has to change in order to thrive, and that change has to come from within, from change agents who are seen as legitimate and rooted in their own cultures. They may not be America’s cup of tea. But we need to know about them, and understand where our interests converge — not just demonize them all. Dan Abrams, founder of Mediaite, responded at length to Friedman in the comments section of a related Mediaite article. ….when a journalist who covers the middle east expresses admiration for the leader of a group that is at least partially a terror organization, its not just a small matter. He may have done other amazing things including being more progressive than others of his ilk, but can you imagine what would happen to an American journalist expressing admiration for an Al Quaeda leader who had other, better, attributes? When you work at a media entity like CNN (or the New York Times) and you don’t get that words matter — all of them — then that in and of itself, should be a fireable offense. One would think, from the wailing of Friedman and Nasr’s other apologists, that Fadlallah was defined by his support of women’s rights. But the Times’s July 5 obituary for Fadlallah , which appeared before the Nasr controversy broke, devoted a single paragraph to his “comparatively progressive positions on women’s rights and family law,” while emphasizing his justification for suicide bombings and hatred for Israel. “Comparatively” is the operative word, as the opinions of this Alan Alda of the Middle East aren’t exactly bold by civilized standards: “…he argued that women had the right to defend themselves from domestic violence.” Friedman’s interest in Fadlallah’s feminism is pretty new. His only previous mention of Fadlallah, according to a Nexis search, was a single citation in the last paragraph of a 1984 news story, back when Friedman was a New York Times reporter.

More:
NYT’s Friedman Defends CNN’s Nasr and Hezbollah Founder Fadlallah, the Alan Alda of the Middle East

Time’s Padgett Likens ‘Misogynous’ Catholic Church to Segregationists

Time magazine’s Tim Padgett, who claims to be a Catholic, used the rose-colored glasses of his leftism to mercilessly bash his own church in an article on Monday where he compared Catholic bishops to ” white Southern preachers [who] weren’t ashamed to degrade African-Americans ,” labeled the Church ” misogynous ,” and accused the institution of an ” increasingly spiteful bigotry ” against homosexuals. Padgett, who wrote back in January 2009 that the communist Cuban revolution “deserves its due,” launched a full-bore attack on the Church in the Time.com article, ” The Vatican and Women: Casting the First Stone .” Padgett wasted little time in unleashing his rage against the Church, labeling a recent Vatican document, which listed “grave crimes” according to canon law, ” Rome’s misogynous declaration ,” since, in his view, was an “avowal, as obtuse as it was malicious , that ordaining women into the priesthood was a sin on par with pedophilia.” The document in question , which revised the Catholic Church’s concerning “exceptionally serious” crimes against faith and morals, does no such thing. Philip Pullella of Reuters reported on July 16 that “Monsignor Charles Scicluna, an official in the Vatican’s doctrinal department, said there was no attempt to make women’s ordination and pedophilia comparable crimes under canon…law…. While sexual abuse was a ‘crime against morality ,’ the attempt to ordain a woman was a ‘crime against a sacrament ,’ he said, referring to Holy Orders (the priesthood).” The Time writer used his mistaken premise to further attack the Church’s hierarchy: Rome’s misogynous declaration , tossed into its new guidelines on reporting clerical sexual abuse, did more than just highlight the church’s hoary horror at the idea of female priests… It also pointed up an increasingly spiteful rhetoric of bigotry . When Argentina in mid-July legalized gay marriage, the country’s Catholic bishops weren’t content to simply denounce the legislation; they used the occasion to argue for the subhumanity of homosexual men and lesbians, the way many white Southern preachers weren’t ashamed to degrade African Americans during the civil rights movement . Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio not only called the new law “a scheme to destroy God’s plan”; he termed it “a real and dire anthropological throwback,” as if homosexuality were evolutionarily inferior to heterosexuality …. What’s at stake is the Catholic Church’s ability to salvage any moral authority from the sexual-abuse tragedy. The fact is, it can still do that without ordaining women. But it can’t do it while digging itself a deeper hole like a defendant hurling insults at a judge. It can’t do it by excommunicating a hospital nun, as an Arizona bishop recently did, because she signed off on an abortion that saved a mother’s life. It can’t do it by losing sight of the difference between dogged traditionalism and mean-spirited obscurantism, as it so often does these days . And it’s sounding that way to Catholics as much as it is to non-Catholics. Many if not most of us Catholics remain Catholics today not because of the church’s leadership but in spite of it. In a new Gallup poll, 62% of U.S. Catholics say gay relationships are morally acceptable. Which means we’re not thrilled to have our religion represented by a bunch of homophobes wearing miters …. If the Catholic Church’s perennial teachings on the absolute immorality of abortion and homosexual acts send you in that much of a rage, why is Mr. Padgett sticking around? There are plenty of other denominations that he could join that are more in line with his liberal thinking. They have sold out orthodox Christian teachings and principles in order to stay “relevant” in eyes of the secular world. The heterodox Catholic revealed his just-below-the-surface dissent against Catholic Church teaching on sexuality and embryonic stem cell research more than two years earlier in an April 19, 2008 article to mark Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the U.S. Throughout his most recent piece, the writer made it clear that his objection to Catholic doctrine had reached a new level since the Pope’s visit. He, like many of his fellow travelers, wants to remake the Catholic Church in their left-wing image. That is the source of his outrageous vindictive against the Church. Earlier, at the beginning of his first paragraph, Padgett hinted that he believed the feminist, neo-gnostic theory, popularized by the DaVinci Code, that Mary Magdalene was an apostle: What a rich coincidence we Roman Catholics got to experience at Mass on Sunday, July 18. The scheduled Gospel passage was Luke’s story about Jesus visiting the sisters Martha and Mary of Bethany (who Catholic tradition says was Mary Magdalene). Many biblical scholars believe the narrative shows Jesus encouraging Mary to assume the role of a disciple, like Peter and the guys . Padgett became more explicit in his endorsement of this DaVinci Code theory later in his piece: Its argument for keeping women out of the priesthood — Jesus had no female apostles — is as shamefully bogus as it is unjust. The hierarchy, threatened by claims of Mary Magdalene’s ministerial status, has long tried to identify her with the unnamed “woman caught in adultery” in the Gospel of St. John . When that woman was dragged before Jesus for judgment — death by stoning, the men demanded — Christ famously said, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.” The church wants us to embrace that compassionate teaching when it comes to pedophile priests, and yet it is deaf enough to cast stones at the “crime” of female priests . The writer couldn’t be more wrong if he tried. There is no longstanding conspiracy against St. Mary Magdalene. Father Prosper Gueranger, a 19th century French Benedictine monk and theologian whose cause for canonization opened up under Pope Benedict XVI, quoted from another great theologian, a teacher of none other than St. Thomas Aquinas, to praise the biblical woman: “[Saint] Albert the Great assures that, in the world of grace…God has made two great lights…the Mother of our Lord [the Virgin Mary] and the sister of Lazarus [St. Mary Magdalene]….As the moon by its phases points our the feast days on earth, so Magdalen in heaven gives the signal of joy to the angels of God over one sinner doing penance .” Also, if the Church is trying to be “compassionate” towards pedophile priests, as Padgett claimed, then why is it doubling the statue of limitations from 10 years to 20 years in cases of priests suspected of child abuse, among other tougher guidelines, in the very document that the writer himself maligned? The Time writer concluded his writer with more left-wing condescension toward the Catholic Church: My daughter happened to be serving as an altar girl at Mass on Sunday. She was smart enough to sense that in the gospel reading, Jesus was relating to Mary as if she were a disciple. And she’ll learn that the New Testament is full of other passages that indicate Jesus believed women could be alteri Christi, or ‘other Christs,’ as priests often call themselves. Real Catholicism encourages that kind of enlightened thinking — and it certainly doesn’t call it, as the Catholic Church does, a crime . Mr. Padgett, you have no right or standing to define what “real Catholicism” is. Be intellectually honest with yourself and your audience: your religion is your liberalism, and the Catholic Church is not the best fit for you. Stop trying to change the Church to fit your left wing agenda.

Visit link:
Time’s Padgett Likens ‘Misogynous’ Catholic Church to Segregationists

CNN’s Lemon Argues With Black Tea Party Member; Civil War ‘Modern History’?

On Thursday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Don Lemon conducted a confrontational interview of a black tea party member and disputed his assertion that the U.S. is “more divided now, racially, than any other time in modern history.” Lemon bizarrely reached back to the Confederacy to challenge his guest’s claim: “Some of the reasons for the Civil War….was racism….How can you say the country is more divided now?” The CNN anchor brought on the Reverend C. L. Bryant during a segment eight minutes into the 10 am Eastern hour to discuss the NAACP’s recent condemnation of the tea party’s “racism.” After playing a clip of Bryant from the 2009 9/12 tea party rally in Washington, DC, where the tea party leader accused the Obama administration of “building walls of racism… [and] class-ism,” Lemon first asked, “What do you think about this new resolution from the NAACP?” Bryant replied, “Well, unfortunately, those types of statements…are echoes of the left at this point in time.” Lemon then challenged the tea party leader both on his “wall of racism” accusation against the Obama White House and on his political labeling of the NAACP: “You just said that was a message that was coming from the left when you were talking about the NAACP’s message. Now…you said in the speech- you brought up racism. You said that the President was building walls of racism…. how can you say it’s just coming from the left when you just said the same thing? ” When Rev. Bryant gave his “more divided” line in response, the anchor made his Civil War reference as part of his retort: BRYANT: There are walls that have been built of racism in this country since this administration has taken oath of office, and I say that to say this- this country is more divided now, racially, than any other time in modern history , and one of the reasons for that, I feel and fear, is because it is very convenient to play the race card when you have a black president. But if anyone voted for this president because of his color, then I would say to you, that was very foolish. LEMON: Well, how you can say that this country is more divided than ever? I mean, when you think about the- you know, s ome of the reasons for the Civil War- I mean, it was racism. The country was divided, I mean, actually divided along a line. That’s what the Mason Dixon line was all about. How can you say the country is more divided now? I mean, it’s not- for lack of a better word, that black and white because there’s progress in other ways. I’m sitting here on television. You’re doing what you are doing. I don’t know if we would be doing this at some other point in time. The Civil War is “modern history”? The 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War is next year in 2011. Bryant tried to clarify what he meant, but this resulted in another challenge from Lemon: BRYANT: When we take into consideration since 1965, when I received the right to vote, and where we sit now, as you very adeptly said here in 2010, and you and I both are on television, and we have the opportunities we have- but yet, we’re still talking about race in this country. There evidently is a place of division that exists in modern society, not since the Civil War, but since 1965 – LEMON: Are you saying we shouldn’t be talking about it? We shouldn’t talk about race? BRYANT: I’m sorry- say again. LEMON: Are you saying we shouldn’t talk about race? BRYANT: Of course, we must talk about race, but it must have a more intellectual tone- LEMON: Okay. BRYANT: Because African-Americans in this country are now more diverse than we ever have been before. Near the end of the interview, the CNN anchor emulated his colleague Rick Sanchez from the previous evening in bringing up the two most egregious example of racially-charged imagery from tea party rallies: LEMON: As I’m talking to you now, you’re seeing the pictures of people- you know, with monkeys; ObamaCare, with the thing- the bone through his nose and all of that, and you’ve been to these tea party rallies. Have you not seen any of these sort of things- signs and elements ? BRYANT: Out of the thousands of people that attend tea party rallies, we are very hard-pressed to police any foolishness that you may see in those types of signs, and as I said earlier, we have discouraged and do denounce anyone who brings those types of signs to any of our rallies. That’s not what we’re about- LEMON: And I think that’s what the NAACP- that’s what the resolution is about, and Ben Jealous said he’s not saying that the entire tea party or the tea party group- that they are racist. He’s saying that the tea party should denounce the racist elements. Do you agree or disagree with that? BRYANT: We have denounced those elements, and we call upon the NAACP to denounce the murderous comments that were made by [Black] Panther members last week. If, in fact, we’re going to play this particular game, then let’s make it fair and balanced. If, in fact, they call on us to denounce a certain element of the right, then they must, too, come to the table and denounce certain elements that are, evidently, on the left. LEMON: Nice talking to you, Reverend C.L. Bryant- and a civil conversation, as we should be talking about all issues. Thank you, sir.