SONICFROG DOT NET

Irony Of The Week!

Gay sex advice columnist Dan Savage lecturing Newt Gingrich on morals!

Technically you’re not asking your wife for an open marriage if you’ve already been fucking another woman for six years. You’re presenting her with an ultimatum. That doesn’t make you a proponent of open marriage, Newt, it makes you a CPOS.

I don’t think Newt has made himself a proponent of open marriage; he’s just a flawed individual, as we all are. I think going on TV and trashing your ex-husband in the days before a critical primary is bitter, bitter, bitter. But I’m a Christian. The private stuff I forgive and understand. Like many men, over the years, my libido has sometimes seemed to have a life of its own. I think we should all give people’s priavte consensual adult sex lives alone. But the public hypocrisy? The ranting about gay marriage destroying America? The lecturing of the poor on family structure? Not so much.

In my opinion, it is foolish to look for an un-flawed candidate. I contend that we never would have been able to elect an Abraham Lincoln (didn’t go to the right schools) or a Winston Churchill (drank too much) under the standards we set for our modern candidates. It’s why I was very please when 3 1/2ish years ago, Republican Rudy Giuliani  had rival Barrack Obama’s back when he admitted he had used cocaine in college. I’m not saying we shouldn’t scrutinize a politicians personal live. All I’m saying is that we are not electing the person to be our moral guide, we are electing the guy (or gal in the future) to run the country in accordance with political philosophies and public policies we deem most appropriate. I am definitely not a Newt support in any way, but, really, does the fact that Newt was (and may still be) a cad really going to affect how he governs now should he win?  The fact that he was having an affair at the time certainly didn’t stop him from riding Bill Clinton’s nose into the ground for doing the same thing.

When Paymasters Collide! And More!

The delicious quote of the day! From this article quoting none other than Rupert Murdoch concerning Obama’s ambivalence to take a stand to support the dying SOPA legislation:

“So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery.”

Murdoch…  Complaining about paymasters?

That’s Rich!

Somehow, I’m not convinced that Murdoch is all that concerned with the plight of software creators. His support of SOPA might have something more to do with protecting this content, maybe.

Regardless, the moguls are outraged!

“We just feel very let down by the administration and Obama for not supporting us,” one studio chief explained to me. “At least let him remain neutral and not go against it until we can get the legislation right. But Obama went against it. I’m personally not going to support him anymore and not give a dime anymore,”

The article continues:

Several moguls have informed Obama’s newly anointed Hollywood re-election liason to the entertainment community Nicole Avant and her husband who is helping her, Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos, that they are pulling out of major fundraisers planned over the next few days and won’t participate in any more headed by Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (whom they see as in the pocket of the Internet giants like Google).

And all this is the result of Mr Obama refusing to vote present on this issue. It would have been nice if Obama himself were to have come out against this piss poor legislation before it gained such a negative amount of notoriety, but having his lackeys hint that the White House doesn’t support it will do I suppose.

Oh, and on that fundraising boycott….. Raise your hand if you believe these Hollywood big-wigs are really going to write no more check to this candidate, especially if Newt wins the primary.

I don’t have to be clairvoyant to know that no hands went up.

PS. I case you missed it, this is a very interesting admission by this writer, and I’m not sure if it was wise for the editors to let it pass through:

The boycott even extends to many of the moguls’ families who also are big Obama and Democratic Party donors. The situation is serious because many moguls and/or their families comprise Obama’s top bundlers in the TV/movie/music biz. Bundlers as defined by opensecrets.org are “people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who’s willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big ‘bundle’.” These donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else. As of September 2011 these 357 elite bundlers were directing at least $55,900,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts — money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee, according to opensecrets.org. That figure by now has significantly increased and will continue to do so.

$55,900,000!… And that was four months ago! Kind of puts Romneys $364,000 dollar speaking take-home into perspective, doesn’t it. And I love that a well known but little talked about method of getting around campaign laws is brought into the light.

Where is the campaign reform crowd when you need them!