Fred Blog - Fred Kuhr

2009-11-01T23:23:00.002-05:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: U.S. Sen. Joe “Can you believe I used to be a Democrat?” Lieberman

File this one under: Still freaky after all these years.

Hard to believe that Sen. Joe Lieberman was once the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential candidate back in 2000. But the years have not been kind to Lieberman. And in return, Lieberman has not been kind back.

Things really came to a head in 2006, when Democratic primary voters in his home state of Connecticut gave him the heave-ho, choosing the much more liberal Ned Lamont over the incumbent. But Lieberman did not go gentle into that good night. Instead, after losing, he launched an independent campaign – and won (with much Republican support).

Democrats were willing to play nice, however, and allowed Lieberman to keep his seniority as long as Lieberman caucused with the Democrats, becoming an “Independent Democrat” (whatever that means).

Then what did he do? Endorse Republican John McCain over Democrat Barack Obama last year, even speaking at the GOP convention.

And yet, he still wanted to be welcomed back in the Democratic fold.

Now …. oops, he’s done it again.

Lieberman announced this past week that he would break ranks with the Democrats and not try to stop a Republican filibuster of health care reform if said reform included a so-called “public option.” (His support is particularly important since the Democrats need the entire 60-member caucus to block a filibuster.)

Strangely, his latest decision comes after years of voicing support for health care reform, including universal coverage. He has even called health care reforms “centrist” (a favorite buzzword of his).

Now, Lieberman argues that the public option is a bad idea because it would raise the deficit and increase taxes (which is false, but that’s a whole other issue).

Of course, Lieberman hails from the state that is the insurance capital of the country. So he was willing to say he supported health care reforms when it wasn’t a reality, but now that push is coming to shove, he is backing down and undermining the principle of universal coverage.

Nice to know that the older Lieberman gets, the freakier he becomes.

2009-10-26T00:33:00.002-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Stephen “I really love Fox News” Harper

If Sarah Palin is the Queen of Freakville, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the King. Yes, once again the FredBlog shines its freaklight on the head honcho of the Great White North.

As you recall, Palin once made headlines for not being able to name newspapers she supposedly reads. While Harper can indeed name Canada’s news outlets, last week he publicly admitted that he doesn’t watch Canadian news. Instead, he watches American networks.

This is what the Conservative told a Toronto business audience: “I watched the last several elections in the United States very closely. I tend to watch mainly American news because I don’t like to watch Canadian news and hear what … everybody else is saying about me. So my hobby is to watch politics elsewhere.”

No surprise Harper watches the American networks. He has appeared on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, among others. And no one would fault Harper for watching networks like CNN – most Canadians do.

But shouldn’t the Prime Minister of Canada be following the news IN CANADA!?!?

Then again, this isn’t the first time Harper has leered lovingly at the United States, instead of paying attention to his own backyard. He blindly followed the policies of George W. Bush, has praised the Republican Party as something the Canadian Conservatives should emulate, and once told a U.S. think tank that Canada “is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term.”

Given his disdain for his own country, it’s no wonder he chooses Fox News over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Jack Layton, leader of the far-left New Democratic Party, said it best when he told the Toronto Star, “Perhaps if [Harper] watched Canadian news more often, he would understand the negative impact of his policies on Canadian families. And if he actually likes Fox News better than Canadian news, then Canadians ought to be concerned.”

2009-10-18T22:08:00.001-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: “Balloon Dad” Richard Heene

Sometimes, the FredBlog has to dig deep to award its “Freak of the Week” honor. And then sometimes, freaks crawl out of the woodwork, clawing their way to victory.

“Balloon Dad” Richard Heene is one such freak.

If you’ve been living under a rock, then you probably missed last Thursday’s worldwide fascination with a runaway flying-saucer-looking homemade helium balloon that made its way more than 50 miles across the Colorado skies, temporarily closing Denver International Airport – and presumably carrying a 6-year-old boy ironically named Falcon.

Turns out the boy wasn’t in the balloon – so the media calling him “Balloon Boy” is just plain wrong. But was that the end of the story? Nope, the freakiness didn’t end there.

The boy was hiding in a cardboard box in the attic of the family home, even though parents Richard and Mayumi Heene said they had searched the house and couldn’t find their son anywhere.

Talk of a hoax began almost immediately.

The Heenes, as it happens, had appeared on two episodes of the trashy reality TV show, “Wife Swap.” So, they weren’t at all camera shy when it came to talking about their balloon buffoonery on the air.

But that didn’t go well. First, during a group interview with all three of their sons on CNN, when Falcon was asked why he didn’t come out of hiding during the balloonery, he turned to this father and said, “You said we did this for a show.”

Then, sadly and strangely, on Friday morning show interviews on both NBC and ABC, Falcon puked. You’d think that after the boy blew chunks on the first show, the family wouldn’t put him on the second! But they did. In fact, they didn’t even blink when he upchucked on ABC, with host Diane Sawyer showing more concern for the boy than his parents did.

Then on Saturday, Richard Heene called a press conference in front of the family home, only to tell the media that he would only be answering questions submitted in writing and placed in a cardboard box (the same one Falcon was hiding in?).

Through it all, the Heenes insisted this was no hoax.

Then on Sunday, police announced that it was indeed a hoax – and that the couple could face felony charges.

According to Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden, the stunt two weeks in the planning was a marketing ploy by the couple, who met in acting school in Hollywood. The Heenes have also been working on a reality TV deal in Los Angeles, reported the Associated Press.

The sheriff said that the couple could face charges of conspiracy, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, making a false report to authorities and attempting to influence a public servant. Federal charges were also possible. The most serious charges reportedly carry a maximum sentence of six years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

So where were Richard and Mayumi Heene while the sheriff was making this announcement? Shopping for snacks at Wal-Mart. (Insert your own white-trash joke here!)

Sheriff Alderden noted that Richard Heene claims to be a storm chaser and inventor and has described himself as an amateur scientist. But Alderden said Heene has only a high school education.

"He may be nutty, but he's not a professor," Alderden said.

A good line for a bad balloon trick.

2009-09-20T22:44:00.007-04:00

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: Joe “You Lie” Wilson, Carrie “Opposite Marriage” Prejean, and Jack “Hypocrite” Layton

After a week off to attend the annual convention of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention in

Montreal, the FredBlog is back with a bag full o’ freaks. So let’s get the party started as the FredBlog shines its freaklight on this week’s Freaks of the Week:

1. Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina

Joe Wilson was freaky enough for shouting out “You lie” during President Barack Obama’s address to Congress. But piling freakiness upon freakiness is this past week’s revelation that Wilson, um, LIED!

If you recall, Wilson raised the roof during Obama’s healthcare address over the issue of illegal immigration. And what makes him such as expert on the issue? Here’s how he explained it during a press conference: “I’m for immigration, legal immigration. I’m an immigration attorney.”

However, as revealed by the website TPMmuckraker, he is nothing of the sort. In fact, he is a real estate lawyer. It even says so on his own website.

TPMmuckraker interviewed a number of South Carolina attorneys as well the American Immigration Lawyers Association. No one knows Wilson as anything but a real estate attorney.

So please join the FredBlog in shouting out to Mr. Wilson, “You lie!”

2. Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean

Carrie Prejean is full of catchphrases. First, she made headlines by giving props to “opposite marriage.” Now, it’s all about, “God chose me.”

You see, this past week Prejean spoke at the right-wing Family Research Council’s so-called Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. (Sarah Palin wasn’t available, so they went with someone who I’m guessing can’t even find Russia on a map!)

In her speech to the Value (if hate is a value) Voters, Prejean discussed her pageant moment when celebrity judge Perez Hilton asked her about same-sex marriage. She told the crowd, “As I saw my goals and aspirations flash by me, I knew God had a plan for me. … He chose me for that moment.”

Yes, Ms. Prejean, of all the people in the world, God chose a dumbass beauty queen. Donald Trump may have chosen you, but God certainly did not.

3. Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada

Jack Layton, leader of Canada’s far-left party, has made a career of bashing the center-left Liberal Party over the head for not voting down the ruling Conservative Party and its Bush-alike leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In fact, in the last election campaign, Layton puffed himself up as the only true opposition leader. And Layton’s disdain for Harper goes so deep that he didn’t even bother reading the last Conservative budget before deciding his party would vote against it.

But finally, the Liberals have had enough. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff announced this past week that his party would indeed vote to bring down the Conservatives, forcing a federal election.

Oh, but wait, the polls don’t look good for Layton and the New Democrats. So instead of siding with the Liberals, something he has been waiting for, Layton engineered a reason to prop up the Conservatives. Worse yet, Layton says he will continue to support the Conservatives on a number of upcoming confidence motions.

So on a dime, Layton has switched from damning the Liberals for propping up the Conservatives to doing it himself. Hypocrisy doesn’t begin to describe Layton’s freakiness.

2009-09-08T00:32:00.002-04:00

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: Tom Ridge, Jack Layton and Kansas Rep. Lynn Jenkins

It was another week full o’ freaks on both sides of the border, with a repeat performance by Kansas Rep. Lynn Jenkins. So without further ado, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on this week’s Freaks of the Week:

1. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge

Tom Ridge, the very first Homeland Security Secretary, makes a stunning assertion in his new book, “The Test of Our Times.” In it, Ridge says he was pressured by others in President George W. Bush’s administration to raise the national color-coded terror threat level just prior to the 2004 election in order to scare the American people into voting Bush back into office. (As we all know, sadly, the tactic worked.)

But then Ridge went on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show and not only changed his tune, but disavowed what’s in his own book.

Under Maddow’s questioning, Ridge said, in part, “Well, I think you are suggesting that it was only driven by, quite obviously the people who made the decision knew more about the threat than you and I do. And again I think it is a pretty radical conclusion to suggest that men and women entrusted with the safety of this country would predicate a decision upon any other basis other than to keep America safe.”

This is the exact opposite of what he just wrote in his own book. Did Dick Cheney get to him before Rachel Maddow did?

2. Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada

Apart from the Liberals and Conservatives (much like the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.), Canada has four parties in the House of Commons. There’s the separatist Bloc Québécois, but there’s also the New Democratic Party (NDP), which is the far left party that sees the Liberals as too centrist (much like many progressives in the U.S. see the Democrats).

For months, the NDP and its leader – Jack Layton –said there is no way they would support the ruling Conservatives, so if there were an opportunity to dissolve the government and have a new election, the NDP would do it. In fact, Layton has pilloried the Liberals for voting with the Conservatives, allowing them to stay in power. Layton has long said that his party was the real opposition.

So finally, the Liberals and its leader – Michael Ignatieff – are talking about voting down the Conservatives. But wait? What is this? Layton says that he may finally be willing to work with the Conservatives and keep them in power.

Why the change of heart? Because Layton looked at the polls and saw that they don’t look good for his party. So now, all of a sudden, with a real threat of an election looming, Layton is willing to do what he criticized the Liberals for doing for oh-so-many months. Hypocrite!

3. Kansas Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Last week, the FredBlog surmised that Lynn Jenkins is either incredibly stupid, racist or both. Either way, it just gets worse.

Initially, Jenkins got in trouble for saying, “Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope” to go up against President Barack Obama.

When it was pointed out to her that the phrase “great white hope” is a racist term dating back to the early 20^th century, Jenkins said she had no clue about the phrase’s racist overtones. (The phrase “great white hope” came into general usage after boxer Jack Johnson, who was black, won the heavyweight title – a victory that didn’t sit well with whites. So many then worked to find a white fighter – a “great white hope” – who could snatch the title away from Johnson.)

Now it turns out that Jenkins voted for a congressional resolution back in July that posthumously pardoned Johnson of a racially motivated conviction back in 1913.

So how could Jenkins say she didn’t know what “great white hope” referred to? Her press secretary happily reports that Jenkins didn’t read the bill! That’s right – Jenkins readily admits that she votes for things she doesn’t read. Yeah, that’s a great way to make yourself look good in the eyes of voters.

2009-08-30T21:52:00.003-04:00

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Kansas Rep. Lynn Jenkins, and (yet again) Stephen Harper

It was another week full o’ freaks on both sides of the border, with a repeat performance by Canadian Prime Minister to top it all off. So this week, the FredBlog turns its freaklight on a freak trifecta aka a “freak-fecta.”

1. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist

If you’ve seen the documentary “Outrage,” you already know that this Republican closet case has earned his freak stripes. But he added more freak merit points this past week when he said that the reason Florida hasn’t been hit by major hurricanes since 2007 is that God likes him.

Crist reportedly told a group of real estate agents, “In 2007, I took my first trade mission. Do you know where I went?” He went to Israel, where he placed a written request in the cracks of the Western Wall that read, “Dear God, please protect our Florida from storms and other difficulties. Charlie.” Crist then implied that God read the note and followed through to the gov’s request. “Time goes on – May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December – no hurricanes.”

Maybe Gov. Crist needs to realize that his last name does not have an “h” between the “C” and the “r.”

2. Kansas Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Lynn Jenkins is either incredibly stupid, racist or both.

While speaking to her constituents at a town hall meeting last week, Jenkins said, “Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope” to go up against President Barack Obama.

Here’s the problem: The phrase “great white hope” is a racist term dating back to the early 20^th century. It came into general usage after boxer Jack Johnson, who was black, won the heavyweight title – a victory that didn’t sit well with whites. So many then worked to find a white fighter – a “great white hope” – who could snatch the title away from Johnson. And the phrase is certainly not obscure. Johnson’s story inspired both a play and a movie – both called “The Great White Hope,” both starring James Earl Jones.

So according to Jenkins, the Republican Party is looking for a “great white hope” to take on America’s first black president.

Ms. Jenkins, would you like a hood with that?

3. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

The leader of Canada’s Conservative government just can’t keep himself away from freakville. This time, it’s due to a grand case of hypocrisy (Harpocrisy?).

First, the background: Canadian senators are not elected, but appointed by the prime minister of the day (without even hearings like they have for Supreme Court justices in the United States). And senators serve until they are 75 and are currently paid an annual salary of $132,000. The Senate, therefore, is ripe for political patronage.

To Harper’s credit – yes, the FredBlog does give credit where credit is due – he ran on a platform of changing the Senate so that it would be more accountable to voters. And he promised – repeatedly – that he would not appoint senators not directly elected by voters.

In fact, during the 2006 election, Harper’s party promised: “A Conservative government will not appoint to the Senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people.” And in 2004, before becoming Prime Minister, he blasted the Senate as “a dumping ground for the favored cronies of the Prime Minister.”

So what did Harper do last week? He appointed nine – count ‘em – nine new unelected, unaccountable senators. That’s after appointing 18 unelected, unaccountable senators only days before last Christmas (so no one would notice).

And who did Harper appoint? The latest group includes the party’s director of political operations (Doug Finley), a former Harper leadership campaign co-chair (Judith Seidman), the president of the Conservative Party (Don Plett) and the director of strategic communication for Harper’s office who also once served as Harper’s press secretary (Carolyn Stewart-Olsen).

So glad Harper isn’t in a favor of political patronage and cronyism.

2009-08-24T00:25:00.004-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

** This week’s FREAK OF THE WEEK is brought to you by the letter U **

It was a week full of freakiness on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border. To the south, right-wing freakiness continued spreading lies about “death panels” while the Obama administration started downplaying pieces of its own healthcare reform plans.

To the north, Prime Minister Stephen Harper continued to insist that he had no idea that Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud had been held against her will and abandoned by Kenyan and Canadian officials in Nairobi – even though Canadian media had heavily covered Mohamud’s plight for 3 months!

As freaky as Harper can be, you would think the Prime Minister would at least know how to spell the names of major cities in his own country.

However, that seems not to be the case.

You see, Harper put out a press release detailing his five-day tour of the Canadian Arctic, which included a stop in the capital city of the territory of Nunavut.

What is the capital? It’s Iqaluit, which in the native Inuit (Eskimo) language of Inuktitut means “many fish.”

But Harper spelled it “Iqualuit,” with an extra U after the Q. Not only is this incorrect, but it also changes the meaning of the word in Inuktitut.

“Iqualuit” – with that extra U – means “people with unwiped asses.”

Not only did Harper get it wrong, but his spokesperson then tried to turn his mistake into a public good by telling the Canadian Press news service, “Hopefully this unfortunate typo, which we have corrected, will inform the greater public that there is no [extra] ‘u’ in Iqaluit.”

Typo? Couldn’t someone have looked this up in a book or online beforehand?

Mr. Harper, before you try to teach everyone else a lesson, you should learn to get it right yourself.

2009-08-19T11:33:00.009-04:00

Canadian abondoned in Kenya, while gov't officials go MIA and do nothing

The story of Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud trapped in Kenya is shameful enough, but the pathetic reaction of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan simply adds insult to injury.

Here’s what happened.

Back in May, Mohamud – who lives in Toronto – was visiting friends and family in Kenya. When it was time for her to come home, airport officials in Nairobi said that Mohamud’s passport photo did not look like her, claiming that she was an imposter.

Even after Mohamud showed all of her ID – including other government documents, even a drugstore loyalty shopping card – Kenyan officials said Mohamud’s lips in person didn’t match those in her passport photo. (Some reports say the photo issue was a ruse, and really, Kenyan officials wanted a bribe. The silliness of the claims even had Kenyan officials ruminating that Mohamud was her own twin sister.)

When Mohamud’s case was then handed over to Canadian officials in Kenya, they did nothing. Mohamud’s Canadian passport was cancelled, she was charged with criminally falsifying her identity, and thrown in jail.

In order to end the ordeal, Mohamud volunteered for a DNA test to prove her identity and to show that she is indeed the mother of her teenage son (who was back in Toronto).

Even after the DNA result, Mohamud wasn’t free to come home, since her passport was cancelled. So she remained a woman without a country.

Finally last week, she was issued an emergency passport and allowed to travel home.

During this entire ordeal, the Canadian government did nothing – NOTHING – to help a Canadian citizen held hostage in a foreign country.

Van Loan – who as public safety minister is the Canadian equivalent of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano – dodged reporters and did nothing. Now, he has the nerve to announce a study to determine what went wrong. What went wrong? Mr. Van Loan, YOU are part and parcel of what went wrong.

Cannon – who as foreign affairs minister is the equivalent of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – then commissioned his own inquiry. Are these people serious? Just look in the mirror – there’s your answer.

Worst of all was Prime Minister Harper who, instead of aiding a Canadian in distress in a foreign land, gave this advice to all Canadian would-be travelers: “The Government of Canada does not control affairs in other countries. We do our best to aid those who are in various forms of difficulty, but ultimately we're not the sovereign government once people leave our territory.”

In other words, you are SOL. And this was the same week that former U.S. President Bill Clinton went to North Korea to rescue two American journalists. The contrast is startling.

This week, Harper not only said that his government would not apologize to Mohamud, but that he only learned of her case last week – even though it’s been making news for three months! This is as sad as Bush getting that memo about Osama bin Laden plotting to bomb the U.S., and then deciding to go golfing.

So what happened here? No need to wait for CYA government commissions. Either the Canadian government, as run by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, doesn’t care about Canadian citizens once they leave the country, or the Canadian government, under Harper’s Conservatives, only cares about some Canadians. Mohamud, after all, is a woman of color who was born in Somalia.

A letter to the editor in the Toronto Star even put it this way: “If hyphenated Canadians decide to go to obscure places in the world, they should do so at their peril.” (Ironically, the letter writer’s last name was McKenna, pegging him as a hyphenated Irish-Canadian.)

This is a sentiment that seems to permeate the highest levels of the current Canadian government. And a government that is so willing to toss one of its innocent citizens aside like this has clearly lost the right to govern.

2009-08-17T01:11:00.002-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Christopher Plante of the National Organization for Marriage

This past week was full of freakiness between anti-gay-marriage activists and Canada’s iconic coffee-and-donut chain. In fact, the FredBlog’s freaklight shined brightly on Sunday’s “Celebrate Marriage and Family Day” in Rhode Island (an event a friend of the FredBlog dubbed “Marriagestock”). But even after Tim Hortons pulled out of sponsoring this anti-gay extravaganza, Christopher Plante – head of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage – couldn’t stop being so freaky.

First, Plante had this to say to the Canada.com group of news websites. “[Tim Hortons] rescinded the offer today as a direct result of the hubbub in Canada. This is an issue only north of the border.”

Wrong, Mr. Plante. This was not only an issue in the Great White North, but among many fair-minded and clear-thinking people in the United States as well, particularly in New England. In fact, it was an activist in Boston who alerted the FredBlog.

Secondly, this was not “hubbub.” This was Canadians standing up for Canadian law, society and values, leading to a company realizing it had violated its own corporate sponsorship policy.

In subsequent interviews, Plante said he didn’t understand all the fuss since his event was not political.

Just how is holding an event that promotes keeping gays and lesbians as second-class citizens NOT political? Plante didn’t say.

He did say, however, that the event wasn’t religious in nature. Huh? As another friend of the FredBlog pointed out, the event was held on property owned by Catholic Church, the vows were in a Christian format, prayer was part of the event, and there was live worship music.

But then Plante said something that surprised the FredBlog. He said that the event was “open to all,” including same-sex couples, to celebrate the institution of marriage.

Well, that’s a-mighty Christian of Plante. But that didn’t last long.

Plante soon issued “last minute instructions” to his minions. “It is not a political event; its purpose is to celebrate and affirm the value of marriage in Rhode Island, which remains by law a union between a husband and wife. The vow renewal [ceremony] is for couples who are eligible for marriage licenses under current Rhode Island law.”

Plante’s note continued: “Sunday August 16th is going to be a fun and safe time as we gather together to celebrate the goodness and wonder of our marriages to our husbands and wives.” How fun!

Oh, and here’s another special instruction: “No posters, signs, displays or booths except those previously approved by the event sponsor.”

The Providence Journal, the local daily, reported that “100 couples … renew[ed] their marriage vows flanked by a large sign that read, ‘Marriage = 1 man and 1 woman.’” Guess THAT sign was “previously approved.”

Tim Hortons wakes up and smells the anti-gay coffee

2009-08-11T00:22:00.011-04:00

Tim Hortons is working double-double time to fix the public relations disaster that was created after the company initially agreed to sponsor an anti-gay event in Rhode Island this coming weekend.

The coffee-and-donut chain – which was founded in Canada in 1964 – angered many after its logo appeared on the flyer for “Celebrate Marriage and Family Day” to be held in suburban Providence on Aug. 16. The Rhode Island chapter of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage is organizing the event, and Maggie Gallagher – one of the most ardent opponents of same-sex marriage in the U.S. – will be the featured speaker.

After the issue went viral over this past weekend, Tim Hortons released a statement announcing it was pulling its sponsorship from the event:

“Recently, Tim Hortons was approached in Rhode Island to provide free coffee and products for a local event, as we do thousands of times a year across Canada and the United States.

“For 45 years, Tim Hortons and its store owners have practiced a philosophy of giving back to the communities in which we operate. As a company, our primary focus is on helping children and supporting fundraising events for non-profit organizations and registered charities.

“For this reason, Tim Hortons has not sponsored those representing religious groups, political affiliates or lobby groups.

“It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines. As such, Tim Hortons cannot provide support at the event.

“Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so. We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.”

Tim Hortons also acknowledged that a regional representative (wrongly) approved the sponsorship agreement.

The company now needs to ensure that this anti-gay, divisive and hateful organization removes Tim Hortons’ logo from its flyers.

Rhode Island is a high-profile target of the National Organization for Marriage, since it is New England’s lone holdout on allowing same-sex couples to legally wed. But now, this group will have to spread its message of fear and unfairness without the help of Timbits.

2009-08-09T22:03:00.009-04:00

FREAKS OF THE WEEKS: Sarah Palin, Beer Summit-ers and senators against mermaids

The FredBlog is back from vacation – hey, even a blog deserves some rest and relaxation – and the freaks have been piling up. So let’s shine that freaklight where it is most needed.

Now-former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

In her resignation speech at the end of last month, Palin’s freakiness was on full display, but here are some of the FredBlog’s favorite passages:

· “In the wintertime, … the cold though, doesn’t it split the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs?” (How about splitting the Pumpernickels from the Sourdoughs?)

· “Our new governor has a very nice family too, so leave his kids alone.” (Thanks, Sarah, for putting the new gov’s kids in the spotlight as well.)

· “Hollywood needs to know, we eat, therefore we hunt.” (Yeah, ‘cuz no one gets their food from a supermarket anymore.)

· “Democracy depends on you [the media], that’s why our troops are willing to do for you. So, how ‘bout in honor of the American soldier, ya quit makin’ things up.” (Um, what!??!?!)

Vice President Joe Biden

He wasn’t supposed to be part of the so-called Beer Summit planned for President Barack Obama, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley. But Biden, who just happened to be in the neighborhood, managed to take part anyway. (Is beer the reason Biden keeps putting his foot in his mouth?)

Obama, Gates and Crowley

The Beer Summit was supposed to be part of a “teachable moment” about racism. In the end, it was a mere photo op – we couldn’t even hear what they were saying. It was just pretty pictures to make Obama et al look like they are doing something proactive.

Sens. Sam Brownback and Mary Landrieu

The Kansas Republican and Louisiana Democrat came together to introduce a bill to prohibit the creation of human-animal hybrids, including – yes – mermaids. (They obviously didn’t like the movie “Splash.”) Good thing they are working on such burning issues as mermaids and mermen instead of things like the economy, health care and the job market.

Congressman Todd Tiahart

The Kansas Republican, as part of his anti-abortion rhetoric, ruminated on the House floor what life would be like if President Obama’s mother had had an abortion. Now that’s classy.

Tennessee state Sen. Paul Stanley

Believe it or not, another anti-gay socially conservative Republican has been caught having an extramarital affair. Stanley finally admitted not only to having the affair with an intern, but also taking explicit photos of her. Stanley – who recently introduced a bill to bar unmarried couples, both gay and straight, from adopting children – has since resigned.

Conservative Party of Canada

At the last minute, the ruling Conservatives denied $155,000 in federal economic-stimulus funding to Divers/Cité, the group behind one of Montreal’s gay pride festivals, forcing the cancellation of a number of high-profile events. This move came soon after a similar decision was made regarding Pride Toronto, all because the federal tourism minister had her picture taken with drag queens. The Conservatives just need to grow up.

New Democratic Party of Canada

The far-left party is considering dropping the “new” and changing its name to the Democratic Party of Canada. That’s all well and good, except something gets lost in translation. You see, in French – Canada’s other official language – Democratic Party translates as “Parti démocrate,” making its initials PD. However, PD sounds like “pédé,” which is a slang term for gays in French. Best to stick with the name as it is.

2009-07-26T23:24:00.003-04:00

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: The anti-Obama Birthers

This past week was so chock full o’ freaks that it was all I could do to keep up with all the freakiness. But by far, the biggest freaks were the so-called Birthers. These are the people on the far right fringe of the Republican Party who believe – despite all evidence to the contrary – that Barack Obama is not an American citizen.

This anti-Obama talk started during last year’s campaign, promoted by the same conservatives who cheered Sarah Palin when she said Obama was “paling around with terrorists.”

Despite making public the documents showing that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii – which, if you recall, is a state – the Birthers roared back with a vengeance at the same time Obama is promoting those “socialist” health care reforms. (Can you say “diversionary tactic”? I knew that you could.)

The rebirth of the Birthers occurred during a recent town hall meeting held by moderate Republican Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware. An angry citizen – reminiscent of the elderly woman who insisted to John McCain that Obama is an Arab – stood up waving around an American flag and her own birth certificate, demanding to see Obama’s.

“He is not an American citizen. He is a citizen of Kenya,” she shrieked, adding that her father fought in World War II (because, you know, that’s relevant). “I don’t want this flag to change. I want my country back,” she added while the audience cheered and whistled in approval. When Castle said that Obama is indeed an American citizen, he was booed. (See for yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwgzYkTDsmQ.)

The movement gained more traction last week when California Congressman John Campbell went on MSNBC’s “Hardball” to promote his bill requiring presidential candidates to show copies of their birth certificates.

This interview didn’t go well for Campbell, with host Chris Matthews pressing him on whether or not he thought Obama was an American citizen. Campbell finally said, “As far as I know, yes.”

Still, the bill feeds the Birthers, whose ranks go as high as CNN’s Lou Dobbs and whose cause has been taken up by Dick Cheney daughter Liz.

What makes absolutely no sense is that the Birthers keep demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate when it’s already out there as part of the public record. So, the conversation goes something like this:

Crazy Birther: I want to see Obama’s birth certificate!

Sane person: OK, here it is.

Crazy Birther: But I want to see Obama’s birth certificate!

Sane person: I just showed it to you.

Crazy Birther: Yeah, but I want to see Obama’s birth certificate!

And on and on.

Funny how these crazy right-wingers never made an issue of any other politician’s status as an American citizen. So what’s going on?

Here it is, and it’s disgusting. There are Americans who just can’t accept, won’t accept, that a black man is president of the United States. Worse than that, he’s a black man with the “un-American” name Barack Hussein Obama. He was born in Hawaii (barely a state, although all of a sudden Alaska is the most American of states), and he lived part of his childhood in Indonesia. Given all that, Obama is seen by some as less than a real, red-blooded American.

During the campaign, Palin talked about how some places in the United States were more American than others. This Birthers movement is part of the fallout from that kind of divisive rhetoric.

It’s racist, it’s ugly, and it’s an evil eating away at the heart of the nation.

2009-07-19T21:48:00.004-04:00

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: Republican members of U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

This past week, there was a whole Senate hearing-room full of freakiness as the Judiciary Committee grilled Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court. As one pundit put it, these spoiled white guys were treating her as if she were the cleaning lady.

Firstly, when asking Sotomayor – who is currently a circuit court judge – about the so-called New Haven firefighters case, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama took issue with the nominee for not voting the same way as another circuit judge of Puerto Rican descent did.

Sessions said, “Had you voted with Judge [José] Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could’ve changed that case.” What the heck does Cabranes’ ancestry – Puerto Rican or otherwise – have to do with his vote? No, Sen. Sessions, Puerto Ricans don’t all think alike.

Thankfully, not all Southern white guys think alike. Then again …

Not to be outdone, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma invoked a Latino stereotype during the hearing. In a bizarre exchange about Sotomayor hypothetically attacking Coburn, he said she would “have a lot of ’splainin’ to do!” That, of course, is a reference to the “I Love Lucy” character of Ricky Ricardo, a Cuban-American famously played by Desi Arnaz. Given the racial undercurrents of the hearing, why in the world would Coburn say this? Then again, in his mind, is there even a difference between Cubans and Puerto Ricans?

And then for some, Puerto Ricans are like any other “immigrants.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, in stating that he would be voting against Sotomayor’s confirmation, compared her to his wife – former Bush Labor Secretary Elaine Chao – because she, too, is an immigrant. As a way of excusing his no vote, he said, “I myself am married to an immigrant who came to this country not speaking a word of English and ended up on the president's Cabinet.”

Um, Mr. McConnell, I hate to break this to you, but, um, Sotomayor is not an immigrant! She’s from Puerto Rico – which has been part of the United States since 1898! I know, is it’s only been 111 years, so it’s easy to forget.

The freakiness, sadly, was not limited to the U.S. Senate. Rush Limbaugh made a direct reference to Sotomayor as cleaning lady: "I think I'm going to send Sotomayor, and her club, a bunch of vacuum cleaners to help them clean up after their meetings." What a classy guy that Rush is.

2009-07-16T00:05:00.002-04:00

Clinton “evolution” points to Obama hypocrisy

Former Bill Clinton – the man who gave us the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) back in 1996 – now supports marriage equality for same-sex couples.

This is a stunning reversal for Clinton. DOMA, after all, blocks the federal government from recognizing legally wed same-sex couples in states where it is permitted. The legislation also allows a state not to recognize a legal same-sex marriage performed in another state, a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s full-faith-and-credit clause.

Clinton made the declaration in response to a question at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, D.C. on July 8, and reported by The Nation magazine’s website.

“I think all these states that [legalize same-sex marriage], should do it,” Clinton said, according to The Nation. When asked about his personal feelings on the subject, he said, “I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it’s wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that.”

This comes after he told an audience at Toronto’s Convention Centre this past spring that his position on same-sex marriage was “evolving.”

Evolving, indeed.

Of course, it’s somewhat safe for Clinton to say all this now, nine years removed from office. Clinton won’t suffer any of the political consequences he faced back when he was in the Oval Office.

At the same time, however, same-sex marriage was merely an idea then – not the reality that began in 2004 in Massachusetts. So it was much easier in the ‘90s to oppose marriage equality – and the tide continues to turn.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of Democrats favor equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Which brings us to Barack Obama.

The current president not only opposes same-sex marriage (opting for separate-but-not-really-equal civil unions), but his Justice Department filed a vile brief in support of DOMA despite once promising to repeal the legislation. (See FredBlog entry “Obama the marriage-equality hypocrite,” June 18, 2009.)

Other high profile Democrats have recently come down on the side of marriage equality, including Howard Dean, who signed the nation’s first civil unions law back in 2000 as governor of Vermont.

Interestingly, Vermont’s new law allowing same-sex couples to marry goes into effect on Sept. 1. Other states joining the marriage equality club this year are Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Iowa.

That’s a lot of evolving. President Obama, the ball is now in your court.

2009-07-13T01:02:00.009-04:00

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: The Conservative Party of Canada

This week, there was so much freakiness attached to one issue that the FredBlog had no choice but to shine its freaklight on not just one person, but the entire Conservative Party of Canada for getting a little too excited about a photo of drag queens.

By now, you know the story – if not, see the posting from July 8 below. As you will see, there are just way too many freaks involved to point to just one. So this week’s freaks include:

· Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He’s the one who disciplined Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy for granting less than $400,000 of government money to Pride Toronto. Ablonczy was doing nothing more than her job; in fact, she deserves credit for doing her job without regard to partisanship or ideology. Shame on Harper for kowtowing to Canada’s radical anti-gay right and punishing her.

· Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost. He’s the one whose head spun around regarding Albonczy getting her picture taken with drag queens. As he told the far right-wing website LifeSiteNews.com, “The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by – I think it’s safe to say by a large majority – of the MPs.” Actually, Brad, it IS government policy to support tourist events like Pride, even if it makes you and your minions uncomfortable.

· M.B. Callaghan of Toronto. There was much public reaction to the Pride funding fiasco, and most of the letters to the editor in the Toronto Star slammed the Conservatives for their crass political pandering. Still, too many people’s sentiments matched Callaghan’s, whose nonsensical letter stated, “It makes perfect sense to discipline Diane Ablonczy for authorizing federal money for a Gay Pride Parade. Surely, if gays had to pay for it themselves, they’d give it up. But if they parade it, it could look like fun to schoolchildren. Imagine – streets full of children behind a gay piper. How could Toronto go Conservative after that?”

· Divers/Cité executive director Suzanne Girard. Amazingly, the head of the organization behind Montreal’s largest LGBT festival actually DEFENDED the Conservatives on this front. As the Canadian Press reported it, Girard simply “blamed right-wing fringe elements for unfairly trying to embarrass the Conservatives and cause problems for events like hers” (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090708/national/tories_gay_festivals). That may be, but if Harper is willing to give in to these “fringe elements,” then Harper’s actions are indefensible.

· Minister of Transport John Baird. Some Conservatives have had the fortitude and common sense to criticize Harper for punishing Ablonczy. But closet-case Baird is not one of them. Even former MP Monte Solberg – who is himself on the far right – wrote on his blog: “The truth is that, for better or worse, the Conservative government has provided grants for this kind of thing in the past. … [Ablonczy] deserves better than to be ratted out by a colleague on an issue that is a complete loser for the party.” As the Toronto Star editorialized, “Shame on other senior Conservatives for not adding their voices to [Solberg’s].” So, shame on John Baird, who has no problem being out in Toronto’s Gay Village – the site of the now-controversial Pride parade – but yet stays silent while on Parliament Hill.

FREAKINESS = SARAH PALIN

What would the week be without some form of freakiness from our favorite soon-to-be-former-Alaska-governor, Sarah Palin.

To begin with, she made fashion news for her press conference in hip waders. (Did the Republican Party pay for THOSE too?)

She also continued to explain how quitting her job doesn’t make her a quitter. Because, y’know, in her world, “quitting” means “leading.”

But the best Palin freakiness was her attempt to be all, like, intellectual and such as. You see, she’s been tweeting a lot lately – guess she has more time to devote to Twitter since giving up her day job. One day last week, she gave specific advice to children:

· “So AK Kids: take time to take your parents fishing: ‘You learn more about a person in an hour than in a year of conversation’ – Plato”

Wow, how impressive, right? She’s quoting Plato. One problem though – Plato never said this!

In fact, it’s credited to author Richard Lindgard in an etiquette guide from 1670! That’s a helluva lot later than Plato’s time. (Or maybe to Palin, everything before Ronald Reagan is just one big blur.)

Worse yet, the actual quote does not reference fishing, but GAMBLING! “If you would read a man’s disposition, see his game,” the quote reads. “You will then learn more of him in one hour, than in seven years conversation.”

So Sarah, better to quit the literary quoting and just stick to your day job. Oh wait, too late.

2009-07-08T23:49:00.003-04:00

Hard-right anti-gay Conservatives 1, Moderates 0

When it comes to Canadian Conservatives reaching out to the gay community, it’s one step forward then two steps back.

Even I was surprised this week after I read that the ruling Conservatives had given almost $400,000 to Toronto’s Pride Week as a way of bolstering Toronto and its Pride celebration as tourist destinations. I was even more surprised when I learned that Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy – a member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Calgary cabal – traveled to Toronto to deliver the check personally.

Pride Toronto, the event’s governing organization, happily accepted the check – in part as a way of showing that Pride is not partisan.

So this was a good news story all around. Right?

Well, it WAS until the right-wing extremists in the Conservative Party went berserk about the government giving money to a gay event.

But what was Ablonczy’s worst offense, according to some? Horror of horrors, she had her picture taken with drag queens!

The result? Ablonczy has been disciplined. Prime Minister Harper stripped her of her power to announce tourism investments (even though she’s the minister of tourism), and she’s been muzzled from talking to the media.

Brad Trost, a Conservative MP from Saskatchewan, was reportedly the first to have his head spin over the site of Ablonczy and drag queens. He told the far right-wing website LifeSiteNews.com, “The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by – I think it’s safe to say by a large majority – of the MPs.”

In response to inquiries from the Toronto Star, a government spokesperson said, “I know that certainly there’s going to be folks who have their concerns and they’ve raised those concerns with us. … We’re listening.”

An unnamed source in the party told the Star: “The TV shots of [Ablonczy] with transvestites inflamed some people.”

Wait a minute. All this “inflamed some people”? And the Conservatives say, “We’re listening”? Real nice for a party that has been trying to hoodwink moderates into thinking it’s not the scary right-wing party it used to be when it was called the Reform Party.

Kudos to Ablonczy for putting partisanship and wedge politics aside in order to honor what she reportedly called Pride Toronto’s “polished and professional” application. Besides, government investment in Pride celebrations is nothing new – in Toronto, both the city and the province support the event, one of the city’s biggest tourism income generators.

In the end, what this Conservative kerfuffle means is simple. Like the Republican Party in the U.S., the Conservative Party of Canada – despite moderates in its ranks – is still beholden to right-wing extremists whose exclusionary ideas and wedge-issue politics are far outside the mainstream.

2009-07-06T00:33:00.004-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Alaska Gov.-for-not-that-much-longer Sarah Palin

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight once again on Sarah Palin, this time for her rambling press conference during which she announced that she will not only refrain from running for re-election, but will leave office by the end of the month.

First, let’s look at the timing of the press conference – Friday afternoon on July 3 (late afternoon on the East Coast). Not only is Friday afternoon the usual dumping ground for releasing information you don’t want people paying attention to, but this was the day before the July 4 holiday – and a day that many people had off anyway.

So it would seem that Palin wanted to leave office without anyone noticing. What, did she think no one would wonder what happened once she left? Was she planning on just disappearing like South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford?

Speaking of Sanford, did Palin take press conference tips from him? Just like Sanford’s public freakiness when he admitted to his Argentinean love affair, Palin’s speech was – as described by CBS News – “rambling and sometimes confusing.” (Just like Palin herself.)

We the listening and viewing public had to hear about the history of Alaska, a long list of her administration’s “accomplishments,” her time since being tapped by John McCain as his running mate and a metaphor about fishing before we ever heard Palin say the words, “I will not seek re-election as governor.” (There was also a basketball analogy, but that came later, as did her final line quoting General MacArthur. She’s so folksy, ya know? You betcha!)

In deciding to step down on July 26, Palin said she did not want to be a “lame duck.” She said, “I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks, ... travel around the state, to the Lower 48, overseas on international trade, as so many politicians do. And then I thought, that's what's wrong. Many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and milk it. I'm not putting Alaska through that. I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!”

I’ll leave it up to Alaskans to decide whether or not it’s a good thing Palin is leaving early, but this lame duck stuff makes no sense. Using her logic, George W. Bush should have left office as soon as he was elected to a second term because he was a lame duck. Ronald Reagan should have resigned as well. Actually, yes, we all would have been better off if they left office early, but does Palin really think Reagan and Dubya were inefficient and ineffective just because they served out their second terms as lame ducks?

Palin, per usual, makes so little sense that she might as well be speaking in tongues. For months, she has sounded like she is making it up as she goes along.

For those who are left scratching your head, Palin said, “All I can ask is that you trust me with this decision.” Oh, like you asked McCain to trust that you would be an intelligent running mate?

EXTREME RIGHT-WING FREAKINESS

For those who are unaware of the Rev. Fred Phelps and his Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, just check out their most prominent website, www.godhatesfags.com. These people are truly sick.

Phelps and his clan began making headlines in 1998, when they picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay University of Wyoming student who was murdered. Their pickets spread from there, targeting almost anyone and anything that does not spread their message of hate – including such “pro-gay liberals” as Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham as well as the funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq. (Why the military? Because, as they would put it, God hates America, because America loves fags.)

The church’s latest freakiness is its plan to picket the public memorial service for Michael Jackson slated for Tuesday, July 7, at the Staples Center in L.A.

Here’s the announcement from the church’s website: “Michael 'Wacko Jacko' Jackson is in hell! [Westboro Baptist Church] will be there to remind you to stop worshiping the dead. We will be there to tell you to Thank God for the death of this filthy, adulterous, idolatrous, gender-confused, nationality-confused, unthankful brute beast. We will be there to remind you that God Killed Wacko Jacko. There is a God, and a Day of Judgment. For you to wallow and murmur against God for his righteous Judgments is sin and will cause YOU to join Michael in hell."

To call them freaks is too kind.

2009-07-01T23:53:00.003-04:00

FREAK OF THE MID-WEEK: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, again!

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is the freakgift that keeps on giving. So, for the second week in a row, the newly dubbed “Love Guv” is the FredBlog’s heretofore unheard of Freak of the Mid-Week.

By now, we all know how Sanford disappeared for almost a week and lied about where he was in order to visit his mistress in Argentina. And then came the rambling and bizarre mea culpa press conference during which he fessed up to his lyin’, cheatin’ ways.

The problem now is that Sanford just won’t shut up!

Earlier this week, over two days of “emotional interviews” with the Associated Press, Sanford couldn’t help himself but give details that should have been left in a folder marked TMI.

Here are some highlights:

Sanford calls Maria Belen Chapur – the other woman – his “soul mate.”

He says he “crossed the lines” with other women during his 20-year marriage, but it never went as far as it has with Chapur. As he put it, “There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn’t have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line.” (That’s a euphemism in the making, as in, “So how was your date last night? Did you cross the ultimate line?”)

He tells the AP that his casual encounters with other women happened during trips outside the country to “blow off steam” with male friends. (So he’s been blowing off with MALE friends, too?!)

He went on: “What I would say is that I’ve never had sex with another woman. Have I done stupid? I have. You know you meet someone. You dance with them. You go to a place where you probably shouldn’t have gone.” (I love that he says, “Have I done stupid?” Yep, y’all gone and done stupid!)

Is he done? No way: “If you’re a married guy at the end of the day, you shouldn’t be dancing with somebody else. So anyway, without wandering into that field, we’ll just say that I let my guard down in all senses of the word without ever crossing the line that I crossed with this situation.” (Another euphemism: “So, you wander into that field lately?”)

He goes on to insist his relationship with Chapur is more than sex. “This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story. A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.” (Sounds like a Lifetime original movie.)

He says he is trying to fall back in love with his wife. “I owe it too much to my boys and to the last 20 years with Jenny to not try this larger walk of faith.”

Some are calling on Sanford to resign or be impeached. Personally, I don’t really care if he stays in office – although his disappearing act doesn’t instill confidence. But here’s a piece of political advice that this freaky governor should heed: Stop talking!

2009-06-29T23:55:00.003-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate who is able – in a single rhetorical flourish – to turn South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s infidelity into an attack on same-sex couples.

On the heels of Sanford’s now-infamous Argentinean disappearing act, many talking heads are opining on whether or not the Republican Party can still call itself the “family values” party without people laughing.

While many GOPers are clinging to the “family values” myth, Romney just couldn’t help himself and took it all one step too far. On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Romney told moderator David Gregory:

“I don't think there's any question but that we aspire to the highest standards of ethical conduct and that we aspire to values that'll make America stronger. There's no question. But the best thing you can do for raising a child is to have a mom and dad love each other in a home. And to say that and to say we want to see marriage between men and women, that we want to see families raised with the benefit of people who are married, that's a very important part of our culture.”

Wait a minute. A bunch of self-righteous Republicans reveal that they cheated on their wives, therefore GAYS shouldn’t be allowed to marry?!?!?

But it gets worse. Romney continued:

“It's part of what our party believes. We believe in life.”

What? These same self-righteous Republicans talk about their infidelity, therefore women shouldn’t have reproductive freedom?!?!?

Then he couldn’t help but return to his anti-gay conclusion:

“I'd rather be talking about the truth and indicating that sometimes people fall short than not saying what's true. And what is true is that America is a stronger nation if we have a culture that includes the creation of families with moms and dads and marriage and sacrifice for the next generation.”

All this comes from the flip-flopper who once called himself pro-choice and who, when challenging Sen. Edward Kennedy back in 1994, said he would be more pro-gay than Kennedy – one of the most liberal liberals in the U.S. Senate!

Romney is nothing but a disingenuous hypocrite who will say anything for political gain.

Need further proof? Gregory also asked Romney if he was considering running for president again in 2012. Romney’s response? “Well, that's way beyond my horizon at this point, to think about what's going to happen in 2012.”

Well Mitt, no one’s buying that!

2009-06-25T00:26:00.003-04:00

FREAK OF THE MID-WEEK: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford

Usually, the FredBlog presents its Freak of the Week on Sunday. But freakiness knows no timelines. Therefore, the FredBlog presents its first-ever Freak of the Mid-Week.

On this special occasion, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Mark Sanford, yet one more Republican “family values” hypocrite to reveal that he’s cheated on his wife. (What, did he get jealous of the press coverage John Ensign was getting?)

Not only did he admit to the affair, but Sanford also disappeared – yes, disappeared – for almost a week. No one knew where he was. He didn’t tell anyone he was leaving. He just up and left.

Let’s address the hypocrisy first. Sanford is your standard “pro-family” social conservative who, whaddya know, was a big critic of Bill Clinton’s during the Monica Lewinsky affair.

At the time, Sanford called Clinton’s affair and the subsequent cover up "very damaging stuff.” He then noted, "I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign] ... I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone."

So will Sanford follow his own advice and resign? Of course not – it’s not the Republican “family values” way.

Sanford also told CNN back in the ‘90s: "The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything."

And Sanford’s lies were doozies. But he seems less concerned about his own attacks on democracy. Special rights for one’s own indiscretions – that’s the Republican “family values” way.

That brings us to Sanford’s disappearing act based on lies and deception. For a full account, see http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/the_missing_governor_a_timeline.php. But here are some highlights:

* Last week, state officials realize Sanford is missing and unreachable.

* The governor’s office issues a statement that Sanford is in a secret undisclosed location in order to recover from a brutal legislative session.

* The governor’s office later says Sanford is hiking on the Appalachian Trail. This, of course, means spending time away from his family over Father’s Day weekend as well as hiking on National Naked Hiking Day (really, it was Sunday).

* The governor’s office issues yet another statement saying Sanford has contacted his office and says he is surprised that his disappearance has caused so much reaction. (He really thought people wouldn’t wonder where he went?)

* Once reappearing at Atlanta’s airport, he said that he considered the Appalachian hike, but instead went to Argentina to experience something more “exotic.” He also said he spent his time alone.

* At a Wednesday press conference, he said he was in Buenos Aires with his mistress. He cried, too, but don’t cry for him, Argentina.

Perhaps the worst part of the whole thing is that he never took the necessary steps to ensure that Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer would act as governor in his absence. So in essence, while Sanford was doing his disappearing Evita act, NO ONE WAS RUNNING SOUTH CAROLINA.

And to think, this guy wanted to run for president in 2012. Then again, does the GOP have much better to offer?

FREAKINESS THROUGH SEXTING

Like the cherry on the sundae, the topper of this scandal is the swath of emails traded between Sanford and his lady friend, who goes only by Maria. To read them all, go to http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html

But here’s one highlight from Sanford: “I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificently gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curves of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of night’s light — but hey, that would be going into the sexual details we spoke of at the steakhouse at dinner — and unlike you I would never do that!”

Sexual details at the steakhouse? That Sanford is a class act.

2009-06-21T23:16:00.002-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: U.S. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on John Ensign, the latest in a long line of Republican hypocrites who love to talk about “family values” while gettin’ a little somethin’ somethin’ on the side.

Ensign, a “pro-family” Nevada Republican, came clean this past week by admitting to an extramarital affair. But not only did Ensign cheat on his wife, he did so with a woman who was a campaign staffer at the time. Even better, the woman’s husband was also a campaign staffer!

Frankly, I don’t give rat’s hoo-ha about Ensign’s sex life, but his recent revelation certainly doesn’t sound like the act of someone who professes to uphold so-called “family values.” In fact, he is a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage because, as he sees it, gay couples being legally wed undermines the sanctity of marriage.

But cheating on your wife with an employee, right under the nose of the other woman’s husband? That’s A-OK!

Worse, Ensign is a member of the Promise Keepers. That’s the Denver-based men’s Christian evangelical ministry. And according to its own website, “A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.” Good job keeping THAT promise Ensign.

Ensign has also been quick to publicly flog other politicians who have cheated on their spouses. He was one of the Republicans who vociferously went after then-President Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky affair. In 1998, he told the Las Vegas Sun newspaper that Clinton “has no credibility left.”

Well, Mr. Ensign, now neither do you.

Ensign also went after fellow Sen. Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho, who had his own sex scandal after being arrested in an airport men’s room in 2007 – around the same time Ensign was having his affair.

At the time, Ensign didn’t call on Craig to resign, but said, “I wouldn’t put myself, hopefully, in that kind of position, but if I was in a position like that, that’s what I would do.” Well then, Mr. Ensign, feel free to follow your own advice.

Then again, Mr. Family-Values-Anti-Gay-Promise-Keeper doesn’t seem very good at following his own advice.

FREAKY ENSIGN, PART DEUX

As if all this weren’t enough, the press conference Ensign held to say, “I had an affair,” took place at an odd locale. It was outside of a men’s room, with the “restrooms” plaque hanging over Ensign’s left shoulder.

Was this an homage to Sen. Craig’s cheatin’ restroom woes? Was he planning on meeting Craig there to get some sex-scandal advice? Was Ensign hoping to get some foot-tapping action of his own? We will never know.

2009-06-18T11:19:00.004-04:00

Obama the marriage-equality hypocrite

Many gay and lesbian Americans feel double-crossed by President Barack Obama – and rightly so. After all, it was Obama’s clear stance against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that led many to side with him over Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton.

Let’s travel back to the summer of 2007, a time when no one was expecting the battle royale to come between Clinton and Obama. In fact, Clinton was all but assumed to be the next president.

Logo, the gay cable network, held a gay-focused presidential primary debate along with the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay civil rights organization. Inevitably, the issue of marriage for same-sex couples came up.

While both Obama and Clinton agreed on separate-but-equal civil unions over full marriage equality, they differed on DOMA. That legislation, infamously signed into the law under dark of night by then-President Bill Clinton, does two critical things:

1. It says the federal government does not have to recognize a legally wed same-sex couple, even if they are legally wed in their home state.

2. It says that other states don’t have to recognize a couple legally wed in their home state. (This is clearly unconstitutional because of the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause, which means – among other things – that if a straight couple elopes to Vegas, when they go home to Idaho, their Nevada marriage must be recognized.)

At the Logo debate, Clinton – ever the pragmatist – said that as president, she would advocate repealing part of DOMA, but not the portion dealing with full faith and credit. She explained that it would not be politically feasible to repeal DOMA fully over the next presidential term.

Obama, however, went all in. He not only called for the full repeal of DOMA, but also noted that this has been his position since he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006.

After that exchange, many LGBT Americans took a second look at the race – and while many still sided with Clinton, more and more jumped to Obama.

DOMA, therefore, was a decisive issue for a large number of gays and lesbians looking at the presidential race.

It’s no wonder so many are angry with Obama right now.

Not only is he dragging his heels on high-priority LGBT issues such as repealing DOMA and the military’s anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which he promised to overturn), but his administration’s recent defense of DOMA is nothing but despicable.

In a brief submitted in the case of Smelt v. U.S. challenging the constitutionality of DOMA and California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is a “cautious policy of federal neutrality.” What!?!?! During the campaign, Obama called DOMA “abhorrent.”

As pointed out by the New York Times in a June 16 editorial, this “neutrality” argument is “an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits – such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns – that heterosexual married couples receive.”

Then there’s the brief’s comparison of same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia. As the Times put it, “The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the ‘traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.’ In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s ‘full faith and credit’ clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.”

And to top it all off, the brief argues that DOMA does not discriminate against gays; it merely limits federal benefits to those in opposite-sex marriages. So the Obama administration is saying that a gay man isn’t being discriminated by DOMA because he could go off and marry a woman to get the benefits!

This is twisted and shows ignorance and the kind of wedge-issue politics that Obama spoke out so strongly against during the campaign.

Then after all this odious offense, Obama has the nerve to throw crumbs in the form of partner benefits for federal employees only.

This is hypocrisy and anti-gay demagoguery worthy of George W. Bush. Is this really the change we can believe in that a majority of Americans voted for?

2009-06-14T23:56:00.002-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Sarah Palin, who earns the distinction of becoming the first person ever to be named Freak of the Week twice! Are congratulations in order? You betcha!

Making Palin’s achievement even more impressive is just how much freakiness she was up against.

There was Canadian Transport Minister John Baird, who was forced to apologize after telling the city of Toronto to “f--k off.”

There was Canadian Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, who was forced to apologize after saying that people potentially dying of cancer is a “sexy” political issue.

And there was now-former Miss California USA, who was unapologetically told, “You’re fired,” by beauty pageant owner Donald Trump.

But the freakiest of them all was Palin, who refused to apologize for calling David Letterman a pedophile, even after the “Late Night” host apologized for a joke that he really didn’t have to apologize for.

It all started with Letterman telling a joke. (Really? Letterman tells jokes? News to Palin!)

In talking about the Palin family’s recent trip to New York, Letterman said there was “an awkward moment … during the seventh inning when her daughter was knocked up by [New York Yankees third basemen] Alex Rodriguez.”

Anyone who has been paying attention to the Palin Family farce would know that the joke was referencing daughter Bristol. It was Bristol Palin, after all, who was famously “knocked up” by her high-school hockey-playing now-ex-boyfriend Levi Johnston.

This became a legitimate story since now-18-year-old Bristol Palin seemed to be living the kind of life her mother campaigns so strongly against. It pointed to the hypocrisy of preaching abstinence-only to teens while your own teen daughter isn’t listening.

But post-joke, Sarah has been trying to argue that since it was not Bristol who attended the Yankee game with her, but her 14-year-old daughter Willow, Letterman was saying that it was Willow who got “knocked up” during the game. Therefore, Sarah Palin says, Letterman was promoting statutory rape.

What!?!?!? She can’t be serious. But oh yes, she is!

On its face, this criticism is ridiculous. Who even knew that Willow was at the game? The joke was obviously, without a doubt, about Bristol. So on that front, case closed.

But Sarah was also trying to make the case that all of her daughters should be off limits when it comes to this kind of ridicule. After all, she and her supporters said, no one would make fun of Obama daughters Sasha and Malia.

Again, is she serious?!?! Bristol Palin is not only 18, and thus an adult, but she has put herself in the public spotlight. She chose to do a round of media interviews once she was hired by the Candie’s Foundation to be a spokesperson for teen abstinence (a joke in and of itself).

So to spell this out – Bristol Palin is not a minor AND she is a public figure. Therefore, it is fair that she be a target by the likes of Letterman. Again, case closed.

Despite there being no need for Letterman to apologize, he did anyway. He even invited the Palins on his show. That should have been the end of it, right?

Oh no, not when it comes to the Palins.

Sarah not only refused to appear on Letterman’s show, but added on her Facebook page: “It would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman.”

You know, because, according to the Palins, Letterman might knock up Willow. Even if the Palins were really offended by Letterman’s initial joke, this insinuation is sick.

And if all that weren’t enough, Sarah ended the week by going on the “Today” show and telling co-host Matt Lauer that what Letterman said not only hurt her and her family but, “I would like to see him apologize to young women across the country” for contributing to a culture “that says it’s OK to talk about statutory rape.”

So when the American people didn’t buy that Letterman was disparaging Willow, she decided to make this about ALL teen girls. Classy move.

And when Lauer asked her about the comment insinuating that Letterman is a pedophile, Sarah said, “Take [the comment] however you want to take it. It was a comment that came from the heart.”

So Sarah, it’s not OK for Letterman to make a joke about your adult public-figure daughter, but it IS OK for YOU to call Letterman a pedophile because it “came from the heart”?

Well, here’s a comment that comes from my heart: You’re a freak!

2009-06-10T00:21:00.003-04:00

F off John Baird

Allow me to be the first to say “f--k off” back to John Baird in response to his anti-Toronto tirade over the weekend.

You see, Baird – Canada’s federal transport minister – was overheard by a Toronto Star reporter at a Whistler convention of Canada’s mayors saying that Toronto “should f--k off.”

Baird doesn’t like that Toronto only submitted one application for federal infrastructure stimulus money – to help the city replace its aging fleet of streetcars. Other cities submitted multiple applications for a whole host of infrastructure projects.

Toronto Mayor David Miller says that the proposal meets federal criteria. Baird disagrees. Disagreeing is one thing, but does Baird really think he should be telling Canada’s largest city to “f--k off.”

After all, Toronto has a special place in Baird’s heart. It’s his gay home away from home. It’s the place where he can sip cocktails at hip and trendy martini bars and stroll through the gay neighborhood, before returning to his Parliament Hill closet back in Ottawa.

He’s been seen on Church Street, the gayborhood’s gay strip. People wave at him, stop to say hi, and tell him what a good job he’s doing – this, despite being part of a regressive and anti-gay-if-it-could-have-its-way Conservative government.

And now, it seems Baird – this Canadian answer to Mark Foley – has joined his fellow Conservatives in thumbing its collective nose at Toronto.

Fine, Mr. Baird, turn your back on Toronto, the city that welcomes you and accepts you, despite your political faults. Flip Toronto the bird – just don’t be surprised if Torontonians flip it back.

2009-06-07T16:06:00.006-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK:

Republican Jewish Coalition leader Matthew Brooks

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a man who, when it comes to Middle East peace, lives in a parallel universe where playing fair is considered unfair.

Truth be told, there was much freakiness reacting to President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech this past week, in which he tried to strike the right balance between power and contrition.

But no one’s freakiness was more succinct than that of Matthew Brooks. In response to the speech, Brooks issued a statement that included this oxymoronic gem:

“President Barack Obama, in his major speech in Cairo this morning, struck a balanced tone with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that's what was wrong with this speech.

“American policy should not be balanced – it should side with those who fight terror, not those who either engage in it or are too weak to prevent it.”

Where to begin with how wrongheaded this is?

Firstly, a balanced tone is EXACTLY what is needed right now. If the U.S. – and other Western democracies – want peace in the Middle East, they must play fair. They cannot be seen as always siding with Israel, especially when Israel breaks the rules.

In fact, just this week we learned that the Dubya Administration was saying one thing to Israel in public about settlements in the West Bank, but privately sending a message allowing Israel to continue expanding those settlements. If the goal is peace, such one-sided duplicity cannot continue.

Secondly, Brooks paints both sides with very broad brushes. He implies that all Israelis are peace-seeking freedom lovers, and all Palestinians are terror-toting evildoers. That’s as helpful as the rest of the world hating all Americans because they disagreed with the policies of George W. Bush. Many Americans disagreed vehemently with Bush and his brethren, and the same can be said for Middle East residents and their respective leaders.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for one, will not endorse the so-called “two-state solution” backed, in writing, by previous Israeli governments. And yet many Israelis have no problem with a solution that creates a peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel. (Officials in Netanyahu’s government also voiced their concern this week that Obama will no longer allow Bush’s two-faced duplicity, but that’s a whole other issue.)

As for Palestinians, characterizing all of them as terrorists – or too weak to fight terrorism – is counterproductive. Americans didn’t like being called evil by those around the world who disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, so why would average Palestinians tolerate it?

And if there are those who want to fight terrorism, but are too weak to do so, let’s help them – not insult them.

The truth is that people like Brooks aren’t interested in peace in the Middle East. They are only interested in what they believe to be biblical prophecy, which disregards current political boundaries, secularism, 21^st century multiculturalism and the goal of global cooperation.

People like Brooks are stuck in the past – sometimes an ancient past – that will not lead to harmony in the Middle East. Obama, to his credit, is advocating a peaceful vision for the future.

2009-06-03T19:46:00.001-04:00

Court could use a “wise Latina woman”

Some social conservatives can’t stop complaining about how Judge Sonia Sotomayor is unsuitable for the U.S. Supreme Court because she had the audacity to point out that different perspectives, life experiences and identities can lead to different judicial opinions.

In 2001, Sotomayor gave a speech in which she said that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.” She compared the judicial opinions of a “wise Latina woman” to those of a white male judge.

And for that, the conservatives call her a racist, a bigot and someone who puts identity politics above the law.

Enough with the handwringing already. Of course, a different point of view can lead to a difference of legal opinion. That’s so much of a no-brainer that even those with no brain should be able to understand it. After all, how else do you explain judges coming to completely opposing conclusions regarding the same case?

Take the recent California Supreme Court decision regarding marriage equality for same-sex couples. Six of the seven judges ruled that gays and lesbians would still get “equal treatment under the law” even after the word “marriage” was taken away from them.

Most gay Americans, however, understand that this is completely wrong. You are not equal under the law unless you are treated equally by the law. Taking away the word marriage – and all that the word confers – results in a clear inequality under the law.

And creating a parallel system of civil unions or domestic partnerships – “separate but equal” arrangements – is not “equal treatment under the law,” either. Many African Americans – as well as other minorities who have suffered unfair discrimination – understand this.

But many straight white men – people like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh – don’t get it, because they haven’t had the life experiences that allow them to understand it.

This is one of the reasons why we need more diversity – and more “empathy,” as President Obama put it – on the bench.

But the Limbaughs and Gingriches of the world hold onto this idea that all judges have to do is apply the law, without any interpretation. Either they are arguing this because it sounds good and they score political points with the hard right, or they don’t see most of the interpretation that goes on because they agree with it. After all, the grand majority of the federal bench is made up of straight white men.

Only two women have served on the U.S. Supreme Court so far. Only two African Americans. No Latinos. None have been openly gay.

Does being a Latina woman alone qualify Sotomayor for the Supreme Court? Absolutely not. But if she is indeed qualified based on the requirements that count for such things, being a Latina woman can only help.

2009-06-01T01:25:00.006-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Conservative commentator Mark Krikorian

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Mark Krikorian, head of the Center of Immigration Studies and the man who argues that Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee isn’t qualified because she pronounces her name in an un-American way.

Ever since Obama chose Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, the fringe of the Republican Party has gone nuts.

Talk-show blowhard Rush Limbaugh called her a racist and compared her to a former head of the Ku Klux Klan.

Former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo – who once famously called Miami a third-world country because of the number of Latinos in the city – called her a radical.

And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote on Twitter: “Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism. White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

But perhaps the strangest and most offensive attack came from Mark Krikorian, whose anti-immigration views are often showcased in the National Review and the magazine’s online feature, “The Corner.”

This past week, Krikorian wrote that Sotomayor was not qualified to sit on the highest court in the nation because of how she pronounces her last name.

You see, she pronounces it the way it is in her native Puerto Rico – with the accent on the last syllable (so-toe-my-OR), instead of the first syllable (SO-toe-my-er). In fact, Krikorian calls hers the “unnatural pronunciation,” because that’s not how he would say it in English.

“This may seem like carping, but it's not,” wrote Krikorian. “… Conformity is appropriate [in] how your new countrymen say your name, since that's not something the rest of us can just ignore, unlike what church you go to or what you eat for lunch. And there are basically two options – the newcomer adapts to us, or we adapt to him. And multiculturalism means there's a lot more of the latter going on than there should be.” (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzkwYzY3ZTc4NTkwZjRiMjM3OGVlMzlmNTZjYmY2ZDI=)

So there ya go. In Krikorian’s us vs. them world, Sotomayor shouldn’t be confirmed because the way she pronounces her name doesn’t conform to his language standards.

But really, this has nothing to do with the Supreme Court, and everything to do with xenophobic fearmongering. He even makes a point to say that English is superior to Spanish because “English dropped gender in nouns, what, 1,000 years ago?”

The most ironic part of Krikorian’s blather is that he’s trying to make a subliminal link between Sotomayor and the whole issue of illegal immigration. But Sotomayor is from Puerto Rico – which has been part of the U.S. since 1898.

Sotomayor is NOT a foreigner. And Puerto Rican culture has been part of American culture for 100 years!

If Krikorian’s attack is really among the best that conservatives can come up with, then the Republican Party is even worse off than we thought.

2009-05-28T00:51:00.004-04:00

California high court got it wrong on marriage

Most know by now that the California Supreme Court this week upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. And many are angry because the decision halts the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But if you want to be really angry, understand how six of the court’s seven justices were able to find a rationale to uphold the now-infamous Proposition 8 – and understand the anti-gay bias behind that decision.

One of the arguments made by the lawyers seeking to overturn Proposition 8 as unconstitutional was that the ban took away the right of same-sex couples to due process and equal protection under the law. But the majority opinion, written by Justice Ronald George, ruled that Proposition 8 does “not entirely repeal” or “abrogate” the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional due process – that is, the right to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.”

Instead, the court ruled, “the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights” by reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples.

That is to say, since California has strong domestic partnership laws, same-sex couples can do whatever they want regardless of whether or not the state confers the word “marriage” upon them. In essence, according to the ruling, denying the word “marriage” does not diminish the right to equal protection under the law.

This is nothing but a legal tango to rationalize that separate-but-equal is not only equal, but also constitutional.

Haven’t we been through this before? Separate but equal is NOT equal. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized this.

Thankfully, at least one of the justices on the court understands this.

The lone dissenter, Justice Carlos Moreno, wrote in his opinion that denying “the designation of marriage to same-sex couples cannot fairly be described as a ‘narrow’ or ‘limited’ exception to the requirement of equal protection. … Even a narrow and limited exception to the promise of full equality strikes at the core of, and thus fundamentally alters, the guarantee of equal treatment. … Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all. Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment. Granting a disfavored minority only some of the rights enjoyed by the majority is fundamentally different from recognizing, as a constitutional imperative, that they must be granted all of those rights.”

Despite the survival of Proposition 8, all is not lost.

The good thing is that this is far from the last word on the issue. The other good thing is that all seven justices ruled that their decision was not retroactive, so the 18,000 or so same-sex couples who married in California before Proposition 8 passed last November are still legally married.

The downside to that, of course, is that it creates an even crazier patchwork of laws. It used to be just that same-sex couples were only legally married based upon what state they were in. Now, same-sex couples in California are only legally married based upon the date on their marriage certificates.

This is untenable – and it’s just one of the reasons why eventually marriage equality will be the law of the land from sea to shining sea.

2009-05-24T17:10:00.006-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Former Vice President Dick Cheney

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who slithered out of his secret undisclosed location to frighten the American people into opposing President Obama.

I know, Dick Cheney is an easier target than a friend’s face while duck hunting. But his national security speech this past week was nothing more than a desperate and transparent attempt to rescue his flagging image by using 9/11 imagery to scare Americans into submission.

Dick used his speech to defend Bush administration policies that even George W. Bush isn’t defending anymore. He rehashed all the failed arguments of the past administration, but puts them forward as factual and credible.

Dick warns of weapons of mass destruction. You know, the ones that were famously never found.

Dick warns about the dangers in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. In truth, going into Iraq only emboldened the terrorists and created a power vacuum that allowed Al Qaida to flourish there.

Dick talks of the abuses of power at Abu Ghraib as a problem of only “a few sadistic prison guards [who] abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation and simple decency.” Again with the “few bad apples” defense? This kind of abuse is a systemic problem and those who were prosecuted were pawns in a greater game that goes far up the chain of command and needs to be investigated. But also Dick, if the military shouldn’t be violating American law, military regulation and simple decency, why is it that you continue to defend torture?

Worse, Dick promotes the practice of waterboarding/torturing alleged detainees, even though it doesn’t work. Even sensible Republicans like Sen. John McCain agree that waterboarding is torture. Conservative radio personality Erich "Mancow" Muller even allowed himself to be waterboarded, thinking the exercise would prove that waterboarding is not torture. Instead, he lasted only six seconds and concluded, “It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke. It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back. … It was instantaneous, … and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Most notably, Dick said the country is less safe today because of Obama’s policies.

But even Tom Ridge – the Bush administration’s original Homeland Security Secretary – doesn’t agree. Regarding Cheney’s criticism that Obama’s decisions to close the Guantanamo Bay military detention camp and release the so-called torture memos made the country less safe, Ridge told CNN’s John King, “I disagree with Dick Cheney. Waterboarding is a matter of debate, but it’s no longer an issue. Debate around memos and waterboarding don’t make us less safe.”

In his speech, Dick said, “To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with a far greater homeland security to make the United States a tougher target.” So why is it, Dick, that your first Homeland Security Secretary disagrees with you?

THEM DEMS ARE FREAKY TOO

Dick also lashed out at Obama for wanting to close Guantanamo Bay, “The president says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system.” Dick added, “Attorney General [Eric] Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept terrorists here in the homeland.”

There is so much wrong with Dick’s statements, but what’s worse is that many Democrats are buying Dick’s illogic.

First let’s examine what Dick said. He makes it sound like the detainees will be brought to U.S. to carry on with their lives and live among us, like a paroled sex offender. In truth, the detainees would be brought and held in high-security prisons that can indeed handle them. After all, we already incarcerate serial killers, child rapists, and all other evildoers, (to use a word Dick enjoys). Theodore “The Unibomber” Kaczynski, Richard “The Shoe Bomber” Reid, Charles Manson and Oklahoma City bomber co-conspirator Terry Nichols are all adequately housed in American prisons.

Omar Kadhr is one of those being held at Guantanamo Bay. He was captured by American forces at the age of 15 after allegedly throwing a grenade in Afghanistan that killed a U.S. soldier and has been held there for six years. Does Dick really think American courts and prisons couldn’t handle Kadhr?

Actually, Kadhr’s situation is exactly the reason so many don’t want to bring the detainees to the “homeland” – because the case of them is so flimsy, so many laws were broken in their detainment, and many have not been charged with a crime, that the real fear among Dick and his adherents is that the rationale for Guantanamo Bay will be exposed as a charade and sham.

But for Democrats, the real issue is allowing the fear mongering to take hold. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters this week: “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.” This is cowardly and pathetic.

And then came the vote on Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo. With 90 of the 100 senators voting in opposition, Democrats and Republicans joined together to allow NIMBYism (the sentiment of “not in my backyard”) to rule the day. Democratic senators have been lining up to say they don’t want the detainees brought to their states.

As for Obama, in his speech he said that since some of the detainees haven’t actually committed a crime – but may pose a threat to America – it would be illegal to incarcerate them. So, he wants to make new law that would make prolonged and indefinite detention legal.

Was this really the change we were supposed to believe in?

2009-05-20T13:41:00.001-04:00

New Conservative ads don’t add up

If you thought the Conservative Party of Canada couldn’t go any lower than the trashy character-assassination campaign they ran against former Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, think again.

The Conservatives – led by I’ll-never-get-a-majority Prime Minister Stephen Harper – have launched Ignatieff.me. This time, their target is current Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, they are making the same mistake many marketing people make. They are taking a tactic that worked once and laying the same template over a different product and audience under a different set of circumstances.

Even though there is no election going on, the Conservatives launched their campaign-style campaign last week, including a website – as silly as the one they did last year showing a puffin pooping on Dion’s shoulder – and TV ad, which are spewing up all over Canadian television.

The ads criticize Ignatieff on a number of fronts, but most notably, they make the argument that he is not a real Canadian because he lived and made a name for himself in the U.S. and Britain. This is just plain silly.

Did Harper & Co. not get the memo that Canada has become one of the most diverse, multicultural and globally aware nations on the planet? Isn’t it a good thing for Canada that Ignatieff has political connections throughout the world, particularly in the Obama administration? Do Harper & Co. not know that a large number of successful Canadians were born and raised elsewhere? And Ignatieff is hardly the first Canadian to leave his home and native land to gain experience and fame, but then return to utilize those skills learned abroad. (If you must, you can watch the ads for yourself at http://ignatieff.me/?p=ignatieff#watch.)

But if all that weren’t bad enough, the French version of the ad – airing in Quebec – is even worse. In that ad, the Conservatives criticize Ignatieff for speaking Parisian French instead of the “joual” French heard on the streets throughout La Belle Province. And by doing so, argue the Conservatives, Ignatieff is looking down on the Quebecois people.

First of all, since when is it evil for an Anglophone to speak non-Quebec French? For the most part, Francophones are more than willing to give Anglophones a break so long as they try to speak the other official language. And Ignatieff is fully bilingual, so his lack of Quebec colloquialism is irrelevant. The truth is that the Liberals are gaining strength in Quebec, and the Conservatives will try anything to stop this.

But also, this is the same Conservative Party that criticized the Liberals last year for assembling a coalition with “socialists and separatists.” At the time, Prime Minister Harper accused the Liberals of getting to close to Quebec nationalists. Now, Harper seems to be saying the exact opposite. Which is it?

The truth is that it is both – and neither. Harper and the Conservatives are willing to play with the fire of Quebec nationalism either way, so long as they think it will get them ahead politically. This is a cynical and dangerous game in which Harper is using separatist sentiment as a political pawn.

In the end, what the Conservatives don’t seem to realize is that Ignatieff is NOT Dion. Ignatieff is much more politically savvy and a much better communicator. While Dion was hesitant to fight back against disingenuous Conservative attacks, Ignatieff is taking them head on – and rightly dismissing them.

As he said last week, “When you're down in the polls, when you're presiding over the worst collapse in employment in recent memory, when you've got record bankruptcies everywhere you look, the thing you're going to do if you're in government and responsible for this mess is change the channel and that's what they're trying to do. Is that serious government? Is that serious politics? That's the kind of government we've got." (http://www.thestar.com/article/634672)

Ignatieff is right. Harper and the Conservatives are out of ideas as the Canadian economy crumbles around them. They are scared, and this latest campaign show it.

2009-05-18T14:06:00.003-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Washington, D.C., on-air host Doug McKelway

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Doug McKelway, a TV anchor in Washington, D.C., who makes us wonder if thou doth protest too much.

I know, you’ve never heard of this McKelway guy. I hadn’t either until I learned about his interview on NewsChannel 8’s “Let’s Talk Live” with fellow blogger Mike Rogers. The interview caught my attention at first just because Rogers is talking about the documentary he appears in, “Outrage,” about gay-but-closeted U.S. politicians. (The film is well worth seeing, by the way.)

Although McKelway is on Washington’s ABC affiliate, he was obviously influenced by the Fox News Channel school of interview techniques. He rants at Rogers from the get-go that he is opposed to Rogers’ work exposing closeted-yet-anti-gay politicians. And it escalates from there, with McKelway seemingly taking the whole issue very personally. McKelway even threatens to take Rogers outside and punch him in the face.

This is well worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4YhlmxUs_s

But that was only the beginning. The next day, when co-host Natasha Barrett (very weakly) tries to take McKelway to task, he very pointedly says he will not apologize. Here’s that video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulZFOz0N6Fg&feature=PlayList&p=E0E8641BDFD49DAC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=68

First off, there is an issue here that McKelway clearly does not get, which is that reporting on someone’s sexual orientation is NOT the same thing as gossiping about someone’s sexual behavior. It’s pathetic if McKelway holds to the outdated stereotype that sexual orientation is the same thing as sexual behavior.

And I’ve said it before, but I guess it needs to be said again. Sexual orientation, if relevant to a story, is not a matter of invading privacy – it’s a matter of reporting truth, which is what journalism is supposed to be about. In an age when politicians’ and celebrities’ divorces, remarriages, affairs and sex tapes are fair game, why is it unfair to ask Florida Gov. Charlie Crist if he is gay?

Secondly, regardless of your personal bias, no respectable journalist has a right to be so disrespectful to an interview subject – and you certainly shouldn’t be threatening a guest with physical violence. McKelway should be suspended or fired – not allowed to use his show to make a point that he won’t apologize.

But lastly, Mr. McKelway, why is it exactly that this issue hits such a nerve? Just asking.

MORE CHENEY FREAKINESS

Since when can’t former Vice President Dick Cheney carry his own water? Well, this week, it seems, since the Republican Party has trotted out his daughter, Liz Cheney, as a “Republican strategist” to defend her father’s apocalyptic blubbering.

Since when is Liz Cheney a “Republican strategist”? All of a sudden, she is showing up on news chat shows, perhaps because the GOP is finally realizing that Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney is a terrible messenger for whatever ridiculous argument the party is now making.

ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” even put Liz Cheney on its round table to be part of the discussion of Dick Cheney’s dire predictions about national security under the Obama administration. Yeah, because, there was really a possibility that Liz Cheney would break out of the Cheneyland spin.

And while the party is forcing one Cheney daughter upon us, where’s the other one? That would be Mary Cheney, the public-when-she-wants-to-be lesbian daughter of Dick who famously worked for her father’s team but would not challenge her father on gay issues.

Then again, Mary Cheney has proven that she has a revolving door on her closet, and while the party has no problem with Liz Cheney, Mary is hiding in the shadows once again.

2009-05-15T13:22:00.005-04:00

Obama: Move along, nothing to see here

Once upon a time, President Barack Obama promised open government and

transparency. He pledged to overturn the pattern of cover-ups and secret undisclosed locations that plagued the Bush administration. He promised the American people that he would end that paternalistic Bush-Cheney sense of, in the words of South Park’s Officer Barbrady, “Move along. Nothing to see here.”

There was a time when Obama promised to get to the bottom of all the prisoner abuse that occurred at the hands of U.S. soldiers. After all, such abuse is counterproductive in the fight against terror. Not only that, but what kind of moral high ground can the U.S. have when it allows such activity as what happened in Abu Ghraib to occur?

There was a time when Obama slammed the Bush-Cheney administration for its “a few bad apples” defense.

How quickly all that got thrown out the proverbial window.

More photos of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers were supposed to be released by the end of the month, a move that was dictated by a court order. And initially, the Obama administration said it would not challenge the courts on this.

But Obama has changed his mind and will now ignore the court order, citing national security. Haven’t we heard this before – over the past 8 years?

He now reportedly says that releasing the photos is “of no benefit” and may inflame anti-American sentiment around the world. But he’s just plain wrong.

Releasing the photos would prove that the U.S. is a nation based upon the rules of democracy, transparency and open government. It would show that the U.S. is a nation that takes the rule of law seriously and does not tolerate abuse and torture.

The U.S., if it wants to win the so-called war on terror, must be a beacon for the rest of the world to follow, not an example of how to cover up wrongdoing in the shadows.

As the ACLU put it, Obama’s flip-flop “makes a mockery of President Obama’s promise of transparency and accountability.”

When Obama starts agreeing with Dick Cheney on issues of national security, you know we are in trouble.

2009-05-11T23:07:00.005-04:00

Palin & Spears: role models?

So Bristol Palin, the famously unwed teen mom who is the daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is now the spokesperson for teen abstinence.

If that’s not ironic enough, she’s also been chosen as a Teen Ambassador for The Candie’s Foundation, which educates teens about the consequences of teen pregnancy. But this foundation is part of Candie’s clothing and shoes. And who is the current spokesmodel and “Candie’s girl” for the company? BRITNEY FREAKIN' SPEARS! Yet another paragon of virtue and role model for teenage girls everywhere.

Can we say mixed messages?

And as if it were some cruel joke, when ABC’s “Good Morning America” interviewed Bristol Palin last week about her new abstinence-only activism, the bottom of the screen read: “Bristol Palin one-on-one.”

I thought “Bristol Palin one-on-one” is what got her into this mess in the first place!

2009-05-11T00:42:00.006-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, who is neither a plumber nor named Joe, but IS sure how he feels about the “queers.”

Wurzelbacher made a name for himself during last year’s presidential campaign after John McCain and Sarah Palin began using him as a symbol of the average American. Because, you know, the average American has a publicist, a book deal, a record deal, AND a gig as a pseudo-journalist in the Middle East.

But his freakiness hit a new high – or low – this past week when he gave an interview with Christianity Today magazine.

Showing where the social conservative movement is still oddly focused, the second question the magazine put to Wurzelbacher was about marriage equality for same-sex couples. The magazine asked, “In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?”

His answer: “At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary – it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do – what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/mayweb-only/118-13.0.html).

OK, fine. You want to think that being gay is wrong, go right ahead. But at least know what you are talking about if you are going to try to make some sort of point.

In fact, God is NOT explicit about, as you put it, “what man and woman are for.” Please point to any explicit statement by God that says that civil societies should treat gay and lesbian people like second-class citizens.

And if you think you are going to point to anything in the bible for proof of God’s word, then I’m sure you also never wear clothing of mixed fabrics, you approve of slavery, you support the death penalty for adulterers, and you “give to everyone who asks of you.” After all, those rules ARE explicitly stated in the bible.

And some of your best friends are gay. But you won’t let your children near any “queers”? Given all the people your children come into contact with over the course of a day, do you spot check all of them just to make sure your kids don’t catch the gay? (And are these people REALLY friends of yours? If so, I’m not sure why.)

Lastly, you are right, Mr. Wurzelbacher, the word “queer,” in its purest form, means strange and unusual. But what planet do you live on that you don’t know that the word “queer” is used as a slur? You love saying how liberals and Democrats are out of touch – but you have just shown how you and your ilk are the ones who are truly out of touch with reality. Walk into any high school and you tell me how “queer” is not used as a slur.

But if you insist that “queer” is merely a harmless word meaning strange and unusual, then you, Mr. Wurzelbacher, are the queerest of them all.

MORE CONSERVATIVE FREAKINESS

I can’t put it any better than the lead paragraph in a story from The Canadian Press news service: “The United States is in the midst of a devastating recession, mired in two overseas wars and grappling with a swine flu outbreak, but conservative critics are assailing President Barack Obama on another pressing issue: his choice of burger topping” (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/631019).

The latest manufactured controversy even has a name – Dijongate.

You may have seen the video footage this past week of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden going out for a burger at a Washington, D.C., fast-food joint.

One could argue that this was a pointless photo-op. But instead, conservatives are taking offense at Obama’s choice of Dijon mustard as his condiment of choice, calling putting mustard on a burger un-American.

Fox News Channel loudmouth Sean Hannity not only refers to Obama’s lunch as a “fancy burger,” but also alleges that rival network MSNBC purposefully edited out Obama’s Dijon choice in order to save the president from seeming too effete. (Yeah, all MSNBC has to worry about is Obama’s condiments!)

William Jacobson, a conservative blogger, also wrote that Obama’s Dijon ways have “a very John Kerry-ish quality about it.”

Wow, this is desperate stuff. You want to go after Obama for his economic policy? Go ahead. His bailout plan? Be my guest. His ideas on healthcare? You have that right. But his penchant for mustard? Pathetic.

And some wonder why the Republican Party is in such a pickle.

2009-05-04T11:57:00.003-04:00

Swine Flu Tip #29

DON'T DO THIS !!!!!

2009-05-03T18:40:00.003-04:00

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Vice President Joe Biden

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who demonstrated that swine flu can lead to foot-in-mouth disease.

I’ve been hearing from readers who are concerned that too many Freaks of the Week are Republican and/or Conservative. Well, rest assured that the FredBlog does not discriminate. A freak is a freak regardless of ideology or political party.

That brings us to Vice President Biden, who has a history of saying the most stupid thing ever. This past week, he did not disappoint.

While being interviewed on NBC’s “Today” show, Biden raised the swine flu alert to red. In a fit of swine flu madness, Biden said, “I would tell members of my family – and I have – I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. It’s not that it’s going to Mexico in a confined aircraft where one person sneezes, that goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me.”

As if that weren’t bad enough – grammatically and otherwise – he continued: “I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway. From my perspective, this relates to mitigation. If you’re out in the middle of the field and someone sneezes, that’s one thing. If you’re in a closed aircraft, a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, that’s another thing.”

That’s right, folks. Listen to your vice president and DON’T take the subway – even if you live in a big city with no car and use the subway to go everywhere, including work. Better to go without a paycheck than have someone at the other end of the train sneeze.

Oh, and – according to Mr. Biden – don’t send your kids to school, either. All those “closed classrooms” can be tricky to navigate. And it’s a good thing Biden said something because parents had NO IDEA that their kids could catch something from other kids at school.

Can we please get some perspective here? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has confirmed about 135 cases of swine flu in 18 U.S. states – and most of the cases have been mild. The World Health Organization estimates about 800 cases globally, most of them in Mexico.

Now let’s look at the normal regular everyday flu. Again according to the CDC, every year approximately 5 percent to 20 percent of U.S. residents get the flu, and more than 200,000 people are hospitalized for flu-related complications. About 36,000 Americans die on average each year from the complications of flu.

So, Mr. Biden, can we please stop the fear mongering?

Of course, politics being politics, various members of the Obama administration went on the air to tell the American people what Biden MEANT to say.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “I think … what the vice president meant to say was the same thing that again, many members have said in the last few days, that is, if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting flu-like symptoms – coughing, sneezing, runny nose – that you should take precautions, that you should limit your travel. … I’m telling you what he meant to say.”

Reporters laughed, with good reason.

That didn’t work, so the administration brought out a bigger gun – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (no stranger to freakiness herself). She said, “I think the vice president, if he had, if he could say that over again, he would say if they’re feeling sick they should stay off public transit or confined spaces because that is indeed the advice that we’re giving.”

That’s all well and good, Ms. Napolitano. But that’s not what Biden said. In fact, he specifically said in that interview that he was not talking for the administration, but for himself and his family. So all of this handwringing doesn’t take away from the fact that the vice president speaks before he thinks.

MORE SWINE FLU FREAKINESS

While I’m on the subject, another freak move this past week was the decision of some organizations and governments to change the name of “swine flu” to “Mexican flu.”

One of the reasons for the change was that pork producers were offended that the name unfairly targets their products. Still others – like the Israeli government – changed the name because any reference to pigs is offensive to both religious Jews and Muslims.

So we don’t want to offend the pigs and the religious, but it’s fine to call it “MEXICAN flu”? I guess it’s OK to offend Mexicans.

Also, pork producers want to make it clear that you cannot get swine flu from eating swine. But can you get Mexican flu from eating a Mexican? No one is saying.