SONICFROG DOT NET

In The Face Of Death – Pt 1

There is a new documentary about HIV and the AIDS epidemic that surfaced in the 1980’s called “How To Survive A Plague“. Andrew Sullivan contracted the virus in the mid 80, and writes of some of his experiences; the fear of dying, watching your friends die, and getting up, protesting, and actually making a difference. The demonstrations led by gay activists, many of whom were fighting for their lives, eventually led to changes in FDA policies which allowed some drugs to be brought to market in a more timely fashion than was permitted at the time. Here is Andrew’s post. It’s a great read, and a reminder of what the gay population faced in the not too distant past, and why some are fighting so diligently to achieve marriage equality.

Being that I came to terms with being gay in the AIDS era, I too have a story to tell. It’s not as compelling as Mr Sullivans, but it is none-the-less a perspective of someone who had contact with that point in time. Being gay during this almost 15 year period was equated by many as being an AIDS faggot! And because you were gay, and had sex, you deserved to die! (even if you didn’t have sex… well… you deserved to die anyway). That wasn’t just what people thought behind closed doors, some openly said it, and still do. I’ll see if I can crank out my perspective today or tomorrow if time permits.

More Journalism FAIL – Taking Quotes WAY Out Of Context.

This is stunning! If you follow my blog, you will know that I can’t stand it when an interview of a news-maker or candidate is edited to make the person look dumb or out of touch. Conservative radio talk hosts do it all the time. I called foul when Breitbart did it with Sherry Sharrod. I’m no Palin fan, but never-the-less I called foul when the Katy Couric / Sarah Palin interview was chopped to make Palin look as ridiculous as possible.

I can’t stand when quotes are taken out of context, no matter which side of the fence does it.

Well, MSNBC has, it seems, taken the art to a new level! Here is the MSNBC video, making Romney look completely out of touch:

Here is the side by side video of both the MSNBC edited version and the full speech:

As Andrea Mitchell says… It’s Amazing!

I am stunned. This is as bad… No…. Much worse than the Breitbart / Sherrod case. At least with that, even though I never bought it, there was a tiny bit of deniability – that Breitbart may not have had access to the full video when he posted his edited version. MSNBC can make no claims in that regard. And thankfully, the regular press is having none of this either.

On “Amazing”… What should be amazing is that anyone involved with this keeps their jobs. But seing that MSNBC is the mirror image of FOX, I suspect those involved will likely get a raise.

Yeah, MSNBC really screwed up this time.

Meanwhile, execs at CNN are going “Shit, we don’t do anything nearly as horrible… How can we have lower ratings than these guys?”.

And somewhere, out in the wilderness, Keith Olbermann is laughing his head off, going “Jeez, is Andrea Mitchell just stupid? I wouldn’t even have gone there! So glad I don’t work for these buffoons anymore!!!”.

Crony Journalism At It’s Best… Er Worst.

Funny, on the same day Barrack Obama, the guy who deported more aliens of illegal entry (is that PC enough) per month than his EVIL predecessor ever did, suddenly and suspiciously changes this policy right in the grips of a very tight general election contest… Huf-Po blogger Geoffrey Dunn – on that very day, long after all this other news had been circulating in the headlines – courageously exposes the already known fact that an ex politician who is currently not a candidate for the Presidency or anything else for that matter, while governor, made backroom deals to secure legislation….

WOW!

I mean, really. I’m bowled over!

I’m not a fan of Sarah Palin by any stretch of the imagination, but really? How significant is she any more, versus the wheeling and dealing of a sitting President? If governance is like making sausage, then Palin’s meats have long become rotted and worm food. Ew. Some of the President’s meaty concoctions are still quite fresh. Why not write about that? Would Geoffrey Dunn have written the same article with the same derogatory slant if were about President Obama’s back room deals on the ACA or other legislation he’s signed in his 3 1/2 years in office? Saving General Motors then implementing the clumbsy Cash for Clunkers program? Solyndra? Would love to see some of the notes and visitors to the White House who had anything to do with the various high speed rail projects the Federal Government under Democrat rule were so eager to pressure the states to build.

Oh…. And the author, trying to defend against the charges of “crony capitalism on steroids” against Obama, shows that Sarah Palin is herself a serial crony capitalist, gives us how many examples of Sarah Palin’s crony capitalism???

Yep. One. That spells journalism FAIL in my book.

PS. One more thing. I wonder why Dunn didn’t go after Mit Romney for also making the “crony capitalism on steroids” remark. After all, he echo’s it in several speeches, and, unlike Palin, he IS running for the Presidency. Could it be that Romney’s biggest accomplishment while Governor of Massachusetts was, as luck would have it, healthcare reform, and to point to any crony capitalism involved with that deal might just look a little too uncomfortably familiar????

Citizens United…. Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhh! (or, to put it bluntly… put up, or shut up) With UPDATE.

Venting Alert!

Sorry if the following will piss people off, but this is something that has bothered me for the last four years. It’s the phony outrage concerning the Citizen United case. It came up last week when Wisconsin Governor pretty much crushed the opposition that tried to recall him. Because Walker was able to raise much more money than his opponent, naturally the union defeat was blamed on Citizen United. Of course, as it turns out, Citizens United seems not to have helped Scott Walker much at all. Walker got most of his money from private citizens, which is not even an aspect of campaign finance law that is covered under CU. It was his opponent that benefited from the changes in campaign finance law from that court decision.

Now, on the eve of the court possibly making the new worstest decision ever by repealing the mandate in the ACA (Obamacare), there is a petition circulating on Facebook telling the court that Citizens United is the worst Supreme Court decision EVER and that they must repeal it! NOW!!!!!

“Worse… Court… Decision… Ever”?????

Um… I guess this person never heard of Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson… Gonzalez v Raich, where the Supreme Court said the act of growing pot, not selling but growing, falls under the commerce clause because the product MIGHT be sold to someone else across state lines in the future! That is a much worse decision than CU.

Oh… and I left this one out – Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – the decision that cart blanc gave corporations “personhood” in the first place! If that one thing were amended in the Constitution, CU, and a whole bunch of money / politics issues in US politics goes away. Yet, not one Democrat has stepped up and even proposed to start this process AND they are actively using the process allowed under the CU ruling to raise money for their own campaigns. I’m sorry, but the outrage over CU is phony!

I’m pretty sure, as in 99.99999%, the SCOTUS had no Constitutional power to repeal a decision on it’s own. Plessy v Ferguson was known to be a God Awful decision for a very long time, yet it wasn’t until a new case reached the court some 70 years later, in the form of Brown v Board Of Education, that gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to reverse the previous decision. And then you have the pressure of “Stare Decisis” a legal principle that makes it difficult to change or reverse prior rulings unless there is very clear legal justification to do so. And no, “I don’t like that decision” is not enough of a reason to do so.

Now, you could wait around for decades for a court case to come up through the system which might maybe lead to reversal… Think Conservatives and abortion. Hell, they’ve been TRYING for nearly 40 years to get an abortion case to the Supreme Court in hopes of overturning Roe v Wade, yet they’ve failed spectacularly despite all their efforts! Either your side is serious about getting corporate money out of politics, or it’s not. Stupid petitions like this are absolutely not effective and only show that your side is not serious about changing the law. You just like having it as a wedge issue to rally the troops. Propose and build support for a Constitutional Amendment, or stop wasting everyone’s time.

——————————

UPDATE: My Facebook friend who posted the original petition responded: Well, at least it’s doing something instead of sitting around bitching about it….”

No… It’s pretending to do something.

I’ve been writing about this for four years, ever since the President made this an issue in embarrassing fashion during the SOTUA. He did absolutely nothing after that, because he knew it would be a new way to raise more money for himself and Democrat colleagues in the future. It was a new source of money. That’s the same reason the Repubs never went after Clinton / Gore for their shady foreign money raising efforts… They also saw a new source of revenue and didn’t want to mess that up. Instead, they had to wait another year before they found out about Lewinski.

Sorry I’m being harsh, but part of the reason nothing changes is because people get lulled into thinking they are making a difference with stuff like this… And they are not! And too often, that is by design. Unless you want to wait around for some 70 years for another court challenge that might, might lead to the reversal of CU, or better yet, the reversal of Santa Clara v Railroad, take the steps to start the process that will actually change the ruling instead of just yelling about it and carrying placards. If nothing else, that should be the lesson taken from the Walker recall. In the end, it was all noise.

PS. No, I’m not a Conservative. I’m libertarianish… with a little “L” and I fully support and advocate for the repeal of personhood status for corporations. Been doing so for years.

Sour Grapes, Grown From Your Own Vineyard!

So, the unions failed miserably, spectacularly  to get Governor Scott Walker thrown from office. Along with the gloating the GOP’ers have earned, there is much hand wringing going on today on the Democrat side of the isle. Except for my favorite political video of the evening, where the challenger gets slapped in the face for conceding the race, which he did lose, this is probably my favorite video from last night.

The fall-back position is that Walker’s win is not legitimate because he was able to out raise and send Barret something like 4 to 1.  Of course, what the Progressives and Liberals don’t tell you, and themselves ignore, is that the reason that happened was in part due to rules put in place when Democrats ruled the roost as a sure fire way to protect the governor, who was also a Democrat. And the law that created the loophole, which was passed in 1987, was supported by…  Drumroll Please…  State Representative Tom Barrett!  Yes, THAT Tom Barrett!!!!

the loophole allowing unlimited donations benefits only candidates facing possible recall efforts, in this case, Walker. The law was passed in 1987 (and supported by then-state representative Barrett) to level the playing field for incumbents facing recall challenges, who would be otherwise handicapped by Wisconsin’s strict campaign-finance laws. Walker took this small loophole, designed to even the odds when state and local candidates faced an unexpected election, and used it to rake in tens of millions of dollars. Yet this loophole hasn’t necessarily increased the amount of money Walker has received to beat back the recall effort; rather it seems that large donations from millionaires and billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess, which normally would have been directed to super PACs and third-party groups, have instead gone directly into the campaign’s coffers.

Ah, the irony.

I know they are going to bring up their favorite whipping boy Citizen United. But that is disingenuous to say the least. Before Citizen United, Corporations and other large entities, donating to either party, had plenty of ways to funnel plenty of money into the political system. But here’s the thing that really bugs me. If Citizen United was SOOOO horrible, where was the effort to propose a Constitutional Amendment stripping corporations of their right to donate to political causes???? There wasn’t one. Why? Because Democrats also rely on that same “evil” funding to get elected and re-elected. Citizen United gives the Dems a hammer to pound on the GOP, but they have no problem using the results of that ruling to bolster their own campaign slush funds.

BTW, I would fully support such an amendment, and believe that only flesh and blood people should be allowed to donate to political candidates and causes.

Deep Intellectual Thoughts For A Saturday Afternoon

So, I wholeheartedly declare I love Pandora.

I absolutely love the Little River Band…

And the two shall NEVER come together in my household!

Why????

Because I know it would only be a matter of time before they play a song by Air Supply!!!! 🙂

I Thought Only Conservatives Threatened Violence Against Their Political Enemies!

From the comments section of FireDogLake, lamenting the latest pols that show WI Governor Scott Walker will probably survive the upcoming recall effort against him:

If you really want to blame someone, blame Feingold and/or Kohl. Walker has millions in lie-filled ads pounding the airwaves 24:7 here. In contrast you see around 1 Barrett ad per day, if that. And to be honest, Barret’s ads are terrible. Falk’s ads were even worse and she would be losing right now by double digits if she had won the nomination.

The reality of the situation is that Feingold, Kohl, and Barret’s campaign could obviously give two shits whether or not Walker loses, and it shows.

Oh, and after we find out that the turnout for the 18-29 demographic is around 20% you can blame them too.

Elections are not the answer. We are just going to have to find other ways to enact “recalls”

Huh… Wonder what the writer of the comment means by that????

Fun With Binoculars And Solar Eclipses!

From the “Just Me, And My Shadow” Dept. After all these years, I finally  found my secret super power! My shadow becomes an anime figure during solar eclipses!!!!! 🙂

PS. I was helping my next door neighbors kids see the eclipse using the binocs and projecting the image onto the family Suburban. I noticed the image projected looked like eyes on an anime cartoon, and the idea was stuck in my head.

Oh, look!  It’s Wall-E!!!!

Does Opposition To Gay Marriage Automatically Equal Bigotry?

I have an awful lot of liberal friends who say absolutely yes – Anyone who is opposed to gay marriage, especially due to religious reasons, are bigots, period! In their world view, there is no middle ground. Either you are good and righteous and support same sex marriage, or you are evil and a bigot and an extreme homophobe!

Conversely, I have more than a few conservative friends who wouldn’t know bigotry from their own side of the isle if it hit them in the head with a hammer! Part of that might be a self defense mechanism trigger by liberals accusing them of bigotry for… Well… Even existing. Lets face it, it is always difficult to knowledge there are flawed rationals or motives nestled within the ideological imprint of your own group.

So, with that in mind, it’s nice to see a sane pro and con conversation on this issue. Here is a bloggingHeads that manages to capture a same discussion of this issue. Enjoy.

Here is my perspective on this issue. First, I don’t think that every person who does not favor or are opposed to the concept of gay marriage are bigots. The reasons are varied, and, even though I might not agree with the logic of the arguments against gay marriage, many are valid in their own right without the tinge of bigotry being attributed to them. This does not mean that there isn’t bigotry motivating the person who is opposed to the idea of SSM, but opposition to it does not automatically make you a bigot.

I am for gay marriage. Yes, it is for the selfish reason that I am gay and would benefit from being able to marry my mate, the person I love and am committed to. There are opponents of same sex marriage who would argue that many of those benefits you can get from marriage are obtainable through various legal contracts, such as property co-ownership and hospital visitation rights. This is true enough. But, there are never-the-less differences. The two situations are not equal. Marriage entails a myriad of legal changes and attachments. Getting every single one individually is prohibitive. And I’m sorry, you just can’t plan for and get legal protection everything. Marriage, on the other hand, is a one stop solution. Some of those legal documents are open to challenges from from third parties, where a marriage and all it entails is not.

PS. I am in a huge hurry to get out the door. If there are any errors, or something does not make sense…. I’ll fix it later. 🙂

The “Evolution” Of A Position

I wrote this yesterday on Facebook, in regards to President Obamas “evolution” on his position concerning gay marriage:

I’ve wrongly been called a denier and anti-science by some of my Global Alarmist friends. Well, in this specific case, I’m going fully on record as saying I don’t believe in “evolution”.

This is what he always believed, but as usual was too chicken to declare it.

Hardcore liberals are elated that he has finally come out in support of gay marriage. Those of us – “us” being gay Conservatives or Libertarians – who have been critical of this latest pivot (flip-flop, whatever you want to call it) have come under sharp fire for not throwing glitter parties and thanking the President for making this the best early Christmas present EVER! What we’re generally saying is that this “evolution” to accepting same-sex marriage is not so much about some incredible epiphany, but is, as usual, all about politics. And, on cue, the turn of events in the last 24 hour gives our criticism some weight. For example. The American Thinker notes:

If his fundraising had been lagging behind the pace of his 2008 campaign, it appears that Obama’s flip flop on gay marriage may have changed that.

[from BuzzFeed]

President Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage carries a political cost, but it also means floods of cash from wealthy gay donors and disillusioned young people eager to be inspired by him again.

The “Obama the brave” narrative will continue for weeks despite the fact that the “political cost” of affirming what everyone knew in the first place is minimal to non-existent. People who oppose gay marriage weren’t supporting him anyway, and those in favor of gay marriage may have been discouraged but weren’t going to vote for Mitt Romney. The downside to his flip flop is small, but is being touted as evidence of political courage despite all evidence to the contrary.

Considering stories had been floating around for weeks, if not months, that Democratic donors were being stingy with their cash, is this move to mollify a very wealthy and prominent section of the base all that surprising?

So, yes, there are reasons for his critics to be a bit snarky.

But, I recognize that some of their criticism toward us is also justified.

When Obama was running in the primaries in 2007and was asked about gay marriage, I was hoping he would give the same answer that he gave in 1996while running for the Illinois state Senate, that he supported gay marriage. He didn’t, opting instead to go with the “marriage is between a man and a woman” answer, even though that was not his former position. It ticked me off because he was running as the “change” candidate, and I thought that would have been the perfect way to signal change. I recognized at the time that if he would have been honest with the voting public on this issue, seeing that the majority of the public was very much against the idea of same sex marriage, he very well may have failed to win the ultimate political victory if he wasn’t political with this issue.

It is ironic that the same political pressures that made Obama disavow his first position on same sex marriage have brought him right back to his original position. But this has been a political mine field for Democrats for so long. Raise you hands if you thought that either Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton were being true to their actual heart-felt position on gay marriage when they disavowed it, also saying marriage was between a man and a woman.

Thought not. Hell, Bill Clinton got hammered for trying to liberate gays in the millitary. And he was never the same politically powerful figure afterward. The gay issue effectively neutered him…. Politically at least! 🙂

Face it, the issue of same sex marriage has been a very tough issue for Democrats to deal with. It’s been a political tightrope. Obama has changed that. In some ways this is comparable to political opposition to prohibition in the 1920’s. For the first part of that decade, unless you were running in a very safe district, a politician, even those who were known to be drinkers, could not publicly voice their desire to end prohibition at all. That was the political kiss of death. 1928 Democratic Presidential candidate Al Smith was the first Presidential candidate from either party to buck conventional wisdom, challenge the ruling dry lobby of the day, and vocally support the repeal of prohibition. Smith may have lost that election to wet / dry Herbert Hoover, due more to vile prejudice against his professed Catholic faith than his views on the drink, but his full throttled opposition to prohibition opened the gate for other politicians to “come out of the closet” as it were and not be afraid to state that previously unsafe position on the issue.

Back to President Obama. Yes, he almost certainly made this move in desperation to try and gain some support back from his ever withering base. He probably did not make this final switch for altruistic and honorable reasons. But then, history is rife with groundbreaking political decisions made for less than pure reasons (LBJ was not exactly known to be a civil rights champion before he signed the CRA in 65). In my opinion, the most important aspect of this change in position is this: It is more likely than not, in the long term, even if President Obama loses in the upcoming contest, that his cemented public support for same sex marriage will smash the wall that has kept many a Democrat, and a few Republicans for that matter, from voicing their true views and support of same sex marriage.

In the short term? Hard to say.

It does look as though this may heel some wounds Obama has created by trying to be a Conservative Democrat… Which no one really bought anyway. Also, he now has something for which there will be very clear and distinct separation from his competitor to point to during the campaign season. When the Republicans want to dominate the debate on economic terms, something which they believe is an issue that favors them, the Obama camp can now convincingly shift gears and lay claim to the once abandoned mantle of social issues. Social issues may not ultimately win the day for the Democrats, but this election season sure did suddenly get a lot more interesting!

So, Upon further reflection, I guess I can say my thoughts on this topic have… er…. “evolved”! :-).

Thank you, Mr. President, for opening this door.

PS. Now can you finish evolving your position on medical marijuana, and go back to the more liberal hands off policy you abandoned to try and win a few Conservative votes.