Friday, March 16, 2007

Elton's music might turn Island gay.

It has been said that cleanliness is next to Godliness. i suspect that is a misquote and the original was “dumbness is next to Godliness” because in my experience the more Godly they are the dumber they become. Let us go to some church leaders in Tobago for an example.

The Plymouth Jazz Festival has the singer scheduled to perform. That has the Archdeacon of Trinidad and Tobago, Philip Isaac rather upset. The good Christian clown wants Elton John banned for attending because John is gay and that doesn’t conform with the Bible

The Archdeacon says that if Elton John sings there it might “open the country to be tempted towards pursuing his lifestyle.” Now I’ve heard all sort of wacky theories from religious lunatics about why people are gay but I’ve never heard the theory that music by Elton John will do it.

John told reporters he had nothing to say. But I hear rumors that instead of commenting he started humming causing reporters in the room to unexplainable begin nuzzling up other reporters of the same sex.

Meanwhile it appears (tongue in cheek -- and not that cheek) that the Vatican has commissioned a report showing that Elton John’s music has been routinely played in the vestry of most Catholic Churches after mass. The church is saying that they now want the singer to pay damages to the church. Cardinal D’Bauch says that the church believes the music may be responsible for wayward priests attacking altar boys. “Elton John ought to help us pay the hundreds of millions in damages we have been saddled with because of his music,” said D’Bauch.

D’Bauch contended that the CD’s distributed to priests had slight word changes. “One song is called “Candle in the end” and we all know what the means say the Cardinal”. D’Bauch said Elton John is the “only person who has much money as we do so why shouldn’t he pay.” The interview had to end early as the Cardinal said he had a Boy Scout camping trip to attend.

Christians for God and George Bush said that there is indisputable evidence, revealed by God, that the first homosexual was only discovered in 1968 days after the release of Elton John's single "I've Been Loving You."

PS: Yes, the first half of this story is entirely true.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Democrats, an echo not a choice

A word for gay voters. The Democrats think they have you locked up nice and tight. They don’t have to give you anything! And they will give you as little as possible. Now we all know about the asinine remarks of General Peter Pace that homosexuals are immoral. So what did the Democratic front runners do when asked about this issue?

They do what front runners always do -- run -- as fast as they could away from the issue. Hillary Clinton, used to ducking issues after being married to Bill, ducked as quickly as she could. When she was asked if she thought homosexuals were immoral she gave a political, non-answer: “Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude. I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can.”

Okay, but the question was: Do you think gays are immoral? A typical politician, when asked a question they don’t like ignores that question and instead answers the one they wished you had asked instead. All politicians are inherently dishonest in this way. It’s the nature of the beast.

The thing is that a lot of people noticed she avoided answering the question so she issued a statement “clarifying” the issue. And once again she actually never addressed the topic. Typical double speak from this woman. Her clarification never said whether she thinks gays are immoral. It merely said, regarding Pace, “I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple. It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in other dangerous places around the world.”

Okay, so are gays immoral? See, Hillary said she disagrees with Pace’s “view” but which view. He actually expressed several views in his comment. One was that gays are immoral. One is that he supports “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (the policy Hillary hubby implemented). She disagrees with a view but which view? Had she said she disagrees with his “views” then we would know.

And notice what she carefully avoided in that statement. The words “gay” or “lesbian” are totally missing. Why? Because she doesn’t want to alienate Black Christians, who are a substantial support base for the Democrats. She also wants to pander to conservatives and win them over as much as possible. But she doesn’t want to lose gay support either. So she says things that she hopes will placate gay voters but doesn’t say anything specific enough to irritate religious bigots.

She was never going to say: “Gay are not immoral.” That is too blunt. So she wanted to give the impression she said it without actually saying it. Republican Senator John Warner did clearly state his position with equivocating in order to maximize votes: “I respectfully, but strongly disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral.” Clinton couldn’t mention the word moral or immoral and couldn’t refer to the group in question. Coward.

Barack Obama pulled the same double talk. His answers were equally evasive changing the subject. And Newsday reported exactly what I suspected: “Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially conservative Democrats, particularly church-going African-americans, who share Pace’s views.”

One gay Democrat, Steve Sanders, tried to play down the betrayals saying that: “Hillary and Barack have made very public overtures to religious Americans. They are trying to figure out how progressive Democrats can also make appeals to Americans of faith. It’s a work in progress.” In other words, they will say anything to maximize votes and are trying to figure out how to have their cake and eat it too. And if the cake on the Right is bigger then gays are shunted to the back of the bus.

A spokesman for Obama later said he disagreed with Pace but Obama didn’t say it for himself. That way there is no film footage that the Religious Right can use to upset Black religious bigots. If Democrats think gays are expendable you can bet they will drop us like a hot potato.

Hillary had zero chance of any support from me. Obama, I was watching but when he decided that the federal government should take over health care he lost me. Anyone so stupid as to think that people who can't deliver mail on time, at a reasonable cost, should run the health system shouldn't be in office. And neither has yet to declare that we ought to get out of Iraq now.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

General wants prejudice to continue.

It is interesting to watch the mental gymnastics used to justify what amounts to prejudice. It was first claimed that gay soldiers simply couldn’t do the job; that gay people are intrinsically incapable of performing military service. That myth has been blown out of the water by the vast numbers of gay military personnel who have done their jobs and done them well.

The second argument that I have heard used is not that gay service members are incapable of doing the job but that other service members feel uncomfortable working with them. That argument basically would make gays the only members of society who are denied the right to serve in the military based entirely on the prejudices of others.

But that argument is failing as polls show that young people, in particular, have no such negative feelings toward gay men and women. The actual individuals with whom gay service personnel would work are the least prejudicial of the general public. But prejudice increases with age. One suspects it is not the actual combat soldiers who feel uncomfortable as much as it is the older officers who sit in offices running things.

I spoke with a US military officer, a friend of mine, about this matter about a year ago when visiting his military base in Germany. He informed me that the vast majority of soldiers he works with have no problems working with gay men or women. While he is heterosexual he said he was often assumed to be gay and never had problems from anyone because of it -- including while stationed in Iraq. The reality is that it is mostly old farts in the Pentagon and Congress, along with the Bible-beating bigots, who are upset with gay military personnel, not soldiers.

One example of one such old fart is Marine Gen. Peter Pace who doesn’t want to change military policy regarding homosexuals. He argues simply that homosexuality is immoral and therefore immoral soldiers should be dismissed. Does he really want to open that can of worms?

Let us say that homosexuality is immoral. Many people also think that smoking, drinking, dancing, Hollywood movies, masturbation, oral sex, and fatty foods are immoral. Usually the line drawn on such matters is whether or not the actions in question violate the rights of others -- not whether some dinosaur has some old view and can’t accept change. And there is a long, time honored moral tradition (which I don’t subscribe to) which says that being in the military is itself immoral.

Pace is not a logical man by any means. Prejudice is rarely rational. Let us follow as he jumps through some hoops to explain his bigotry. He says: “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

He doesn’t mean immoral in any way. He doesn’t exclude fornicators, drinkers, smokers, atheists, masturbators, gluttons, the envious, and a host of others, consider immoral by many people, from military service. He defines morality in a way that excludes gays and allows most other “immoral” people because they aren’t gay.

And Pace is clear that he means homosexuality mostly: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” Gee, does that mean if they involve three people they are okay?

Now this old man says that he does support the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. This reveals the real problem. Under “don’t ask, don’t tell” a soldier is allowed to serve, even if he is gay, put will be thrown out if his homosexuality is discovered. So Pace is saying he doesn’t mind having gay personnel in the military provided he just doesn’t know they are gay.

So if their “immorality” is something he is unaware of then he doesn’t care. Isn’t that condoning it? I mean if you actively overlook it, knowing full well it might be happening, then aren’t you condoning it? So it is not “immorality” that bothers him after all.

It isn’t the immorality of what these people do in the privacy of their bedrooms that bothers Pace. He just doesn’t like being around someone he knows is gay. He’s happy for them to be immoral provided he is unaware of it. This has nothing to do with immorality since he doesn’t want to stop the immorality. It merely has to do with the visceral disgust a bigot feels toward people they don’t like.

That’s why all those other immoral acts are ignored by Pace -- he doesn’t have prejudicial views toward drinkers, masturbators, fornicators or the like. It’s gays he doesn’t like and therefore he wants his prejudices cemented into law.

It’s time the dinosaur retire.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Sanchez scandal deepens as lies are uncovered.

I wondered how conservatives would handle the fact that they unknowingly gave an award to a gay porn star. And how would Matt Sanchez, the porn performer in question, handle the issue. Now I know how they are dealing with it -- it’s really the fault of liberals!

This blog was one of the first to report this story after reading a small news article on the topic. I then went on to read what I could find available at the time. There wasn’t a lot out there but there was enough to piece together the facts. And the original blogs that I could find with articles were rather respectful of Sanchez but had disdain for the people who honored him -- he was being honored because some Lefties called him names at Columbia University because he is now in the Marines. Hardly an inspiring story but it’s more of a victory than Iraq and conservatives are desperate.

Reports I read said that Sanchez has every right to be a Marine if that is what he wishes to do. They even said he had the right to be a conservatives -- about a quarter of gay votes are. But Sanchez and the conservatives have gone on the attack claiming is being victimized by the Left! was once mainstream conservative where was the where the loony Theopublicans dominated. But there is no mainstream conservative movement left (which should mean the demise of conservative power in America for some years to come). At this site one foaming-at-the-mouth Theocon, Kevin McCullough has gone ballistic. He writes: “Diabolical liberals are once again showing their disdain for homosexuals...” He says liberals are “the most homophobic mouth foamers the universe has ever seen.”

Now that really is rich. It is logic beyond belief. Remember this is the very conference where Ann Coulter got up and referred to John Edwards as a “faggot” in her speech and the audience applauded. But St. Ann is not mentioned instead it is the “diabolical” liberals who are the real homophobes.

Why? Because they found it amusing that the conservative moralistic Theocons inadvertently gave an award to someone who has done very little except get called names and make porn films and screw men for money. But they claim that in giving out this award they are proven to be tolerant of those “who struggle with sexual sin”. Pardon me if I gag. But that is rubbish. Sanchez would not have received the award if they knew.

Michelle Malkin, a Coulter wannabe, quickly penned a comment on her web site saying that CPAC will have to investigate more thoroughly their award winners in the future. Why? The only reason for such an investigation is to make sure the same mistake doesn’t happen again. Yet, McCullough fakes the line that the award someone proves that the Right is tolerant. Ineptness is not tolerance. But McCullough headlines his article: “Why Christians Embrace ‘Gay’ Porn Stars.”

Malkin, once she understood the party line, climbed on board. On March 8th she wrote: “I said the other day, I thought CPAC organizers would be justified in being embarrassed if the rumors abhout Sanchez’s porn star past 15 years ago turned out to be true. Well, the rumours are true. But it is neither CPAC nor Cpl. Sanchez who should feel embarassed.” Wow, she can turn her views so fast the head spins.

Instead it is the “hate-filled liberals” who should be embarrassed. She says she knew “left-wing bigotry would rear its ugly head”. Malkin drools: “Cpl. Sanchez, it was an honor to meet you and a privilege to know you.”

By the way someone ought to correct Right regarding the time span. Sanchez and the Right are saying that he made these films 15 years ago. One title of a film he made was mentioned and I checked that out on the net and it was produced in 1996. And a film list I found says his last film Touched by an Anal was in 1997. And I believe his “escort” work came after that. His porn career started 15 years ago but it didn't end 15 years ago. It is hard to piece this together since Sanchez has reinvented himself several times. He has used numerous names in his career and even changed ethnicity. He once claimed to be French-Canadian but is now Hispanic. He has called himself Pierre LeBranche, Rod Major and Matt Sanchez. All this duplicity makes it harder to track down the facts.

McCullough goes into a homophobic tirade equal to, and surpassing, the one he pretends diabolical liberals love. He first argues that all bloggers who commented on the case were “homosexual bloggers”. I read about the story at a TV station web site. And then he claims: “The reason so many of these homosexual bloggers knew this is simple. They are rabid consumers of homosexual pornography and have spent, days, months, possibly years in front of their television screens acting out on the urges within them. They have been enslaved by the unforgiving voices that have told them since birth to act upon every sexual urge they have. The thought of sexual restraint is foreign to these bloggers.” Days, months, even years? How the hell did they find time to write their blogs?

When I read something like this I wonder what demons are hiding in McCullough’s closet. Last time I heard a tirade about sex, erotica and such that was this rabid it was Jimmy Swaggart. But that was before he got caught with the hooker, trying to convince her to include her underaged daughter in his escapades, which included hard corn porn and him watching while acting “upon every sexual urge” he had. No doubt many Christians embrace porn stars. Sometimes they get caught when they do!

I want to cover some of Sanchez’s lies now. I had no criticism for him until he opened his mouth in irrational attacks trying to twist the story to make himself a “hero” again to conservatives. He is no hero. He had some insults slung at him by some far Left types and he got upset and went to the media for publicity as a victim. Hell, I get criticism like that from the Left and the Right both fairly regularly. But conservatives are quick to play the “victim card” these days. Especially if it gives them their 15 minutes of fame.

Sanchez claimed that any blogs which reported on the blunder (for them) of CPAC giving him an award were “Left-wing blogs”. Sorry Matt that is false. No Lefties here. Just someone trying to cling to the old ideas of limited government, free markets, non-interventionism, social tolerance -- ideas that once held some sway on the Right (though never enough) before the rise of the bigoted Theopublicans.

Sanchez says that he knew his “past might be put under the microscope”. Really? Then wouldn’t it have been the honorable and “courageous” thing to tell CPAC that he might cause them a huge embarrassment. Apparently his courage award was so good he was afraid to tell the truth. Ironic in a way. He was too cowardly to tell them the truth but gets awarded for his courage.

Sanchez admits that he advertised “my services as a male escort” and “acted in several adult movies.” In case you don’t know the only place he “escorted” men, was to bed. Sanchez has intentionally turned the focus on himself when the emphasis had been that the conservatives are the hypocrites and that in one moment they attack someone as a “faggot” and in the next give an award to someone who made gay porn films.

(For the record I’ve never seen any film with Sanchez nor knew who he was until I read the news story.) The story, until now, has been about how conservatives are out of touch with reality and how the Sanchez award exemplified that. It wasn’t about Sanchez. But he got famous once by crying about being a victim so he is doing it again. Once a whore always a whore.

He made a list of 13 reasons he is supposedly a hypocrite and these were supposed to reflect what was being said about him. Sorry Matt you just weren’t the story. But since you want the limelight so be it. One reason, he said, was “because I am gay, and this is proved by acts on video--and everyone knows you must believe what you see on TV.”

What???? This seems to imply that he really isn’t gay and wasn’t involved in porn. Maybe he can’t write? I don’t know. So are we supposed to not believe the evidence of the senses? Are we supposed to ignore the photographic proof of his previous occupation? I just don’t get what he’s saying. He admits he made gay porn and then attacks people for believing “what you see on TV”. I can see why he is a darling of the Theopublicans -- he’s illogical and irrational as they are.

Now is Sanchez gay? I don’t know and I didn’t care. He was certainly gay for pay in porn films. He took money to go to bed with men. It is entirely possible he was a straight man who was just a whore. And I’m sure that the conservatives would like to believe that. Or, even better, perhaps he can help them indulge another conservative wet dream -- he could pretend to be an “exgay”.

He was asked in one interview if he is gay and he doesn't quite answer the question with a yes or a no. He was asked: Do you consider yourself gay? He replied: "Boyfriends: 0, Fiance 2 Wife: 1. I'd say I'm pretty bad at being gay." He leaves out a critical statistic, sexual partners. I've know gay men who were married, some several times. And many of those who fight their sexuality have lots of gay sex but never have a gay relationship. And certainly his career choice involving having sex with men lasted for many years. He supposedly went into the business in 1992 and he was supposedly confronted by Alan Colmes with evidence that he was still publicizing his career as a sex worker for men as recently as two years ago. You can listen to that interview below. This interview shows how dishonest Sanchez is being. He claims that his film career ended several years before it did. He claims that he did straight porn but no one has found any. He denies that he ran ads offering sex to men up until a couple of years ago and denies it was him and then basically says he will admit to anything. Listen to the full interview and you will show how dishonest he is being.

And he supposedly ran this web page seeking male sexual partners up until just a few days ago. And you can find this old interview with him where he talks quite excitedly about his career having sex with men. And when asked about his dating life he said he likes men "who are modest and have a sense of humility" but said he was not in a relationship. But now he's implying he's not gay, not good a being gay, stopped being gay, take your pick. The problem with Sanchez is that you can't pin anything down since he's invented fake stories so many times in the past for himself.

I can’t help but wonder if Sanchez has remained in the same occupation as before and only switched what services he whores out. It’s not as if he has the same looks from a few years ago. He admits: “I sought attention.” He’s promoting himself. Now if he markets himself as a “cured gay” who was almost destroyed by the evils of porn, but who found salvation in conservatism, the Right will rush out and embrace him and shower him with more awards and hefty speaking fees. Conservatives love to be fleeced by people telling them what they want to hear. And no one knows how to tell customers what they want to hear for cash like an old whore.

Sanchez says he became a “conservative” (though he never says what that means) because of the Left. Too bad he’s not bright enough to realize that one can repudiate the Left without embracing the rabid Right. But there isn’t much money in that and the prime reason one embraces a career of whoredom is the cash. And he is definetly planning on making money off of this. Asked if he is writing a book he says: "I've got to keep that one under wraps for the moment. You know how it is, you're writing a book. I just dont' want to emotionally charge my project with all this melodrama. I want a well thought-out, and well crafted piece I won't be embarased to show, because the Kristen Bjorn stuff is embarrassing enough" (Bjorn was one of his porn directors). To whom will Sanchez sell his book? His market is obviously going to be the Right so he will have to embrace the Theocon agenda fully if he wants to sell his product. So he will have to bash liberals and gays. And he's already started.

Oddly, while pretending to be straight he attacks the gay community saying that gays "start off with the term hypocrite and work their way backwards looking for signs of deviant behavior in hopes of discovering some type of bastard kinship. That's why I've had the term self-loathing thrown at me so often. The gay community eats its own in a frenzied hope of self-serving fulfillment." Oops! Sorry Matt but if you accuse the gay community of eating "its own" that means you are a member of the gay community.

Sanchez admits that he won’t say he’s sorry “for leaving a long-ago summer job off my curriculum vitae”. Was that the porn job? Or the prostitution job? (And I happen to think he had the right to engage in either if he wished. But it sickens me that instead of taking responsibility for his own life he is portraying himself as the victim.)

He admits he left that bit of history out of things. So CPAC didn’t know. They weren’t, as McCullough pretends” embracing a gay porn star. They were embracing someone who did what ever whore does well -- tell the client exactly what they want to hear. There was no tolerance exhibited by the conservatives only the naivety of the John who finds the whore told them what he wanted to hear, handed over the cash, and felt cheated afterwards.

When cheated like that there are two responses. One is is the private response. You get angry and feel humiliated. The other is what you tell the buddies who were with you when you picked up the whore. For them you pretend that you weren’t fleeced and that you knew exactly what was going on the entire time. That is what conservatives like McCullough are doing. To avoid the embarrassment of looking stupid they pretend they are tolerant.

But the way conservatism has evolved in recent years the stupidity theory has a lot more credence than the tolerance theory. Sorry, but anyone who thinks a conference that applauded the word “faggot” is exhibiting tolerance is proving the stupidity theory.

And Sanchez is doing what whores do. He is marketing himself carefully with an image that will guarantee more customers from the Right. He applauds the “faggot” hating Right who he says are wonderful. He claims that liberals (he doesn’t call them diabolical) are heaping abuse on him. And he markets himself as brave and courageous and as a victim. And conservatives today are the major proponents of victimology.’

Now I’ve read Sanchez’s blog and his article in Salon He doesn’t say whether he is or isn’t gay. He leaves it ambiguous. He does admit that someone claims he had a dating page on a gay web site but he insinuates, though doesn’t say, that it isn’t his. I guess he’s trying to decide whether it more lucrative to be a heterosexual who was only gay for pay or to be an exgay. Or he is waiting to see what other evidence arises so his story corresponds with the facts that come out. I don’t know if he’s still having gay sex today. I didn’t ask and he isn’t telling. And i don’t care.

But McCullough pretends to know. He says Sanchez “stopped having homosexual sex” and that proves that all gays can leave “an empty, sad and destructive life”. Gee, that tolerance is just overflowing. It does prove that Theocons will twist the facts to get the results they want.

I first thought Sanchez was just an unwitting victim in all this. I didn’t fault him about his past nor did I care about it. To me it was the inability of conservatives to be realistic about such matters that was the story. Sanchez wants to be the victim and has lashed out with some attacks I think are dishonest and twisted. I had never heard of him prior to this escapade of his. I suspect he overplayed the “abuse” he experienced and played that up. It got him the attention he admits that he craves. And now it appears he is doing the same thing again. As for me I can only conclude he never changed occupations only customers.