CNN hates you

[yesthattom]

Here’s a screen capture of CNN earlier today:

Click for image

Notice that the headlines are FIRE, FIRE, FIRE. On my Treo 700p cell phone CNN displays a special “mobile CNN” that reduced it to just the headlines:

• Fight-fighters make headway as...
  
• Exhaustion setting in on fire...
  
• Front line fire crews fight advanc....
  
• In burn unit, fight-fighter battles...
  
• Super-rich celebs’ homes also threatened
  
• Commentary: Saving marriages must be a national priority

The last one... “Saving marriages must be a national priority” seems a bit out of place. Oh well, must be an accidental placement. I mean, the author couldn’t possibly have known, when writing that article days ago, that the fires would be displacing HALF A MILLION PEOPLE and that claiming that the divorce rate is too high would seem distasteful, right?

But wait!

Click on the link! The first sentence is: “Americans are always good at touting an issue as a state of emergency in order to establish a sense of urgency.” Basically he’s saying, “Hey, we always spring into action when there’s an emergency, isn’t it about time we declare an emergency about the divorce rate?” Then he gives the tired old rhetoric that the Christian Right gives all the time that is code for “men should be able to beat their wives and women shouldn’t be granted a divorce just because they go to bed bloody every night.”

ZOMG!!!! How could CNN be so shameful.

Comments

[onecrazymother.livejournal.com]

Slight devil's advocate point here...he does specifically say that if you are being abused you should leave.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Yes, but he's advocating for laws that won't let women get a divorce in that situation.

[onecrazymother.livejournal.com]

OK, please educate me. How do you know that? Since I'm home today, I took the time and read the whole article again, all the comments, searched the Roland Martin's website, and did a google search looking for others talking about him. I see no reference anywhere to any laws he is advocating for.

I consider myself, generally, to be doing a piss-poor job of being a well educated citizen, and you seem to be on top of things. How do you know this?

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

A major strategy of Roland, John Tomicki, and others of that ilk is to promote "making it not so easy to get a divorce" which is code for "require both parties to agree to a divorce, and remove any no-fault divorce". These are two tools used by battered spouses to get out of bad situations.

[arkham1010.livejournal.com]

er...
the reason that no fault divorces were made was a lot of times a party of the marriage would commit purgery (He hit me!) to get out of the marriage when in fact no such thing actually happened.

So removing it is not a good idea.

[onecrazymother.livejournal.com]

You still don't answer my question of, "How do you know this?"

Searching "John Tomicki" and "no fault divorce" , and looking through bunches of things, spending much more time than I ever normally could, the only reference to an actual attempt to change legislation to make divorce difficult is a group in Washington state describing shock tactics meant to get people to sit up and take notice that the state supreme court has decided the state has an interest in only allowing those who are able to have children together, to marry.

"I just know because I live and breathe this stuff, but I don't know my sources anymore" is a possible answer. But, if you don't mind, what are your top three favorite sources of legislative and political news? Late October is, "gah, I should be more informed" season, you know.

[arkham1010.livejournal.com]

so the state of Washington will now be banning marriages of those over 50, or those who are infertile?

[onecrazymother.livejournal.com]

it sounds like the group advocating for marriage rights, including rights for same sex marriage, is going to put that forward as a reasonable reading of the supreme court's decision, in order to raise public outcry.

[arkham1010.livejournal.com]

I would hope so, since if the state decides to allow marrages to heterosexual couples that cannot have children, then suddenly there is an equal protection issue. And equal protection issues, like all issues of constitutionality, become federal issues.

So the 9th court of appeals would be able to rule on this issue. YAY!

Until it then goes up to the Supreme court. Boooo!

[arkham1010.livejournal.com]

BUHAHAHAH!

New initiative: No children? Then no marriage
'Absurd' idea aims to start discussion

By RACHEL LA CORTE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OLYMPIA -- Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302553_initiative06.html

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

I've seen the man speak in person and people asked him about it.

My fav sources currently are: dailykos, talkingpointsmemo.com and... hmm... not sure if I have a 3rd right now. worsethanfailure.com :-)

[onecrazymother.livejournal.com]

Well that's probably the best way to get a clear picture of someone.

And thanks for the links. worsethanfailure, of course, looks like a list of jokes I'm not expected to get. But I see I can read a bit on talkingpointsmemo.com, and then even jump directly from there to dailykos, so that might prove useful.

a tangential thought

[onecrazymother.livejournal.com]

OK, maybe it's awful for me to be amused by this at all, but I found myself slightly giggling at this thought: Wouldn't the world be just a little bit better if we could at least establish, "I don't give a rat's ass if I *am* going to Hell for disobeying you, I said,'No!' fuckwad," as the universally accepted official safeword of the religious right?