Dirty Sanchez: The Truth About A Conservative Gay Porn Star and Prostitute

May 4, 2007 9:45 AM

Cpl. Matt Sanchez is the BFF of Ann Coulter and gay porn consumers. "Former journalist" Charles Wilson has launched an exhaustive site all about him and his alter ego, Rod Majors.Check out his biography, a filmography, an "evidence locker," a discussion forum, articles, forums posts, and transcripts of radio interviews. This is the most comprehsenive site about this dude the world will ever need.
posted by sneakin (183 comments total)

the hardliners
posted by matteo at 9:55 AM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

OK, this site is awesome. But how weird is it that "former journalist" Charles Wilson previously devoted his time to telling the "real story" about the death of James Kim in Oregon this year? I hope this guy never investigates St. Nicolaus.
posted by Nelson at 9:55 AM on May 4, 2007

Matt Sanchez -- Jeff Gannon Redux

"U.S. Marine reservist Matt Sanchez was given an Academic Freedom Award at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, where Ann Coulter hurled her 'faggot' slur against Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. Sanchez, who attends Columbia University, also recently appeared on conservative talk shows where he criticized 'radical anti-military students' he met during campus recruiting. Reports have since surfaced that Sanchez has allegedly worked as a gay porn star [and prostitute], prompting silence from his (now former) right-wing cheerleaders and charges of hypocrisy lobbed at Sanchez by gay bloggers."

Photo: Matt Sanchez with Ann Coulter.

In related news -- Former Gay Escort And WH Reporter Gannon Holds DC Bible Event.
posted by ericb at 10:16 AM on May 4, 2007

So I read a bit of the site, skipping the explicit stuff, and I still don't get it. He's a gay marine, and the gay community is outing him in order to make him lose his job? Why is that good?
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:34 AM on May 4, 2007

I'm with anotherpanacea on this one.
posted by smackwich at 10:36 AM on May 4, 2007

I think the deal is, he was a Marine held up as an example by conservatives (especially Coulter), except he was a gay porn star and possible prostitute.
posted by drezdn at 10:39 AM on May 4, 2007

Don't we ever get sick of talking about Ann Coulter?
posted by jonmc at 10:43 AM on May 4, 2007

gay community is outing him in order to make him lose his job

No no no. They are outing him because he obtusely simplifies things and then misses the point.
posted by DU at 10:44 AM on May 4, 2007 [8 favorites has favorites]

He's a gay marine, and the gay community is outing him in order to make him lose his job?

First, he's an inactive reservist, so he can't lose a "job" he doesn't really have.

Second, what do you mean by "gay community"? Do you mean the HRC? Pink Pistols? Björk fans?

Third, how do you reach the conclusion that the "gay community" (whatever that is) is outing him, when he outed himself through his open activities as a prostitute and gay porn actor?

These kinds of non-sequitors really bother me. Reminds me too much of the tactics the Bush administration used to sweep Guckert/Gannon under the carpet, somehow twisting the poor life decisions he's made into the fault and burden of GLBTs everywhere. That's just not right.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:55 AM on May 4, 2007 [7 favorites has favorites]

So that is why Bjork is so popular.
posted by Dizzy at 10:57 AM on May 4, 2007

In case anyone else decides to skip "the explicit stuff" (lot of hot fact-on-screen action in that link, it's understandable), the rough outline is thus:

Self-righteous Marine college student who has never and will never see combat gets into shouting match with campus socialists at Columbia U. Circulates his persecution to the usual right-wing echo-chamber subjects, becomes shining symbol of support-the-troops courage in face of liberal demagoguery, gets big award. Campus socialists and gays respond by making public his long career as a gay porn star and prostitute. Echo-chamber chiefs abandon him, USMC investigates. Film at 11.
posted by gompa at 10:59 AM on May 4, 2007 [6 favorites has favorites]

Gompa,

Thanks--can you please do this for all other Metafilter posts I'm sorta-interested-in-but-not-enough-to-really-read-then-digest-then-contemplate?

Seriously--at a buckapost, you could be rich.
posted by Kibbutz at 11:07 AM on May 4, 2007

Don't we ever get sick of talking about Ann Coulter?

I only get sick while talking about Ann Coulter.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:07 AM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

It's not that he's gay, it's that he's a hypocrite and another whiny cry baby conservative who wanted to play the role of victim. And dare I say, that would seem like conduct unbecoming of a marine, unless the marines now approve of whiny little pussies hiding under Ann Coulter's skirt.
posted by 2sheets at 11:09 AM on May 4, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

I should've included a little breakdown, but gompa's above is pretty much right on.

And, no, jonmc, we never get tired of talking about Ann Coulter.
posted by sneakin at 11:10 AM on May 4, 2007

can you please do this for all other Metafilter posts I'm sorta-interested-in-but-not-enough-to-really-read-then-digest-then-contemplate?

It's a fine offer, Kibbutz, but it's a labour of love, and I'll only do it for posts about outed gay hypocrite inactive Marines - and hockey. That's just how I roll.
posted by gompa at 11:14 AM on May 4, 2007

Well, I'm mostly responding to the lack of coverage of his supposedly hypocritical statements. I've spent enough time at Columbia to know that -some- of the leftist there aren't very good at separating their hatred of the war from their treatment of the warriors. And, as I understand it, he'll lose his extension student status if the USMC drops him, so yeah, his job is at stake.

In all, this seems like a very indirect swipe at Coulter et al, who are in fact vicious blowhards, by way of destroying a poor gay college student with a foolish conception of politics.

Not nice. And since Wilson is quoting a bunch of gay bloggers, I take him to represent something like the gay blogosphere, even though that's a necessarily diverse and pluralistic group. The whole point to avoiding stereotypes about 'gays' is to preserve this plurality; not to shun and destroy some poor bastard for disagreeing with you.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:16 AM on May 4, 2007

No discussion of Matt Sanchez is complete without a link to his Facercise page (SFW). One photo in particular from that page is the best illustration I have found for the term gayface.
posted by La Cieca at 11:18 AM on May 4, 2007

And, no, jonmc, we never get tired of talking about Ann Coulter.

Why? I mean, sure she's offensive and all that shit, but her main crime is that she's boring as hell.
posted by jonmc at 11:19 AM on May 4, 2007

So I read a bit of the site, skipping the explicit stuff, and I still don't get it. He's a gay marine, and the gay community is outing him in order to make him lose his job? Why is that good?

It really isn't about him, it's about embarrassing the right-wing asshats who made him their hero for 15 minutes.

To wit, Ann Coulter called Edwards a "faggot", and at the same event shook hands with, apparently, a faggot. Either we allow these selective applications of calumny, or we do not.
posted by dhartung at 11:19 AM on May 4, 2007

See, in Ann Coulter's world, "faggot" was acceptable because it outlines how John Edwards is some sort of over-articulate wuss and drama queen. Matt Sanchez is a former Marine reservist and, apparently, notorious top. So he's no faggot, he's a manly gay man who has no problem acting like a man, holding the crazy right line.

I'm saying this tongue-in-cheek, but you know someone's thinking it.
posted by mikeh at 11:31 AM on May 4, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

I'm with jonmc on this one; talking about the Coulter, even in a negative way, only serves to give it more power.

Let us never discuss it here again.
posted by quin at 11:37 AM on May 4, 2007

a poor gay college student with a foolish conception of politics

Dude parlayed a routine pissing contest with the essentially powerless campus extreme left into first a campus newspaper editorial and Military Times op-ed (in which he defined his opponent in the debate as "most of the people at sophisticated, exclusive Columbia University") and then repeated appearances on national TV and an award from a national consevative group. His hypocrisy revealed, he promptly wrapped himself in the American flag and denied his homosexuality even after explicit video evidence of it surfaced.

"A foolish conception of politics"? This guy could've replaced Rummy as Sec'y of Defense, and he'll probably get a fellowship to the American Enterprise Institute once the shitstorm passes.
posted by gompa at 11:37 AM on May 4, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Wait, what was his hypocrisy?

From what I understand, reading here... he criticized the political stances of people he disagreed with.

He was found to be gay and outed for it, thus making any points he may have had null and void.

Wait, what?
posted by fet at 11:50 AM on May 4, 2007

These kinds of non-sequitors really bother me. Reminds me too much of the tactics the Bush administration used to sweep Guckert/Gannon under the carpet, somehow twisting the poor life decisions he's made into the fault and burden of GLBTs everywhere. That's just not right.

Blazecock, I wanted to take a moment to respond to this non sequitur of yours explicitly. I don't know why some people take such pleasure in painting the Bush administration with the 'you know gays' brush, but I think it's a really bad strategy.

So long as we talk about various anti-homosexual policies as unjust, I think we're in agreement that eventually those policies will be overturned. But to then make the move to ridicule, to say: "Ha! You know gay people. You work with them. Their sickened morals have touched you and corrupted you as well, like it or not," is actually pretty offensive.

For most people, what someone does in the bedroom is just not that interesting; the logic of outing someone merely to smear their colleagues with their 'sin' is a decidedly conservative, homophobic strategy. The fact that many groups that advocate pro-queer policies choose to use that strategy doesn't change the fact that the strategy itself depends on hatred.

Moreover, the decision to apply this tactic against people whose policy-advocation is at odds with your own makes it particularly odious. It's a punishment that most people do not deserve, derived from a sense of self-righteousness that is itself often undeserved. Young people who make bad decisions about the company they keep -should- be allowed to sweep that under the carpet. Some people will try to outlive their wild pornographic youth, while others are hoping to live down their brief association with rabidly hateful Republicans. I think we should let them.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:51 AM on May 4, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

fet, his points still stand, although I doubt I'd give them much credibility at all as the people who are rewarding his diligence are, by their nature, contentious and not prone to supporting good arguments.

Really, the only people deserving criticism are those who held up Cpl. Matt Sanchez as an example while denouncing his actual lifestyle at the same time. Wait, but Sanchez denied and denounced his own lifestyle.

That's where he becomes less of a desirable source for criticism -- it's not that his criticism could not be valid, it's that those praising it are disreputable and he himself is now fairly unbelievable as a source.
posted by mikeh at 11:59 AM on May 4, 2007

For most people, what someone does in the bedroom is just not that interesting; the logic of outing someone merely to smear their colleagues with their 'sin' is a decidedly conservative, homophobic strategy.

Simply pointing out when more obnoxious members of the right-wing hoist themselves by their own hateful petard, whether it is Jeff Guckert/Gannon, Matt "Dirty, Dirty" Sanchez, Andrew Sullivan or Mark Foley, is most certainly not a conservative, homophobic strategy.

Indeed, the use of the term "strategy" is rhetorically misleading, when there is no cabal — neither secret, nor non-profit or card-carrying — tasked with hunting down gay right-wingers and outing them.

In fact, I reviewed my minutes from the last dungeon meeting, and there's no mention of any obligatory Two Minutes of Hate. I must have missed that part of the agenda.

So, again, I ask you: Which "gay community" are you referring to?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:14 PM on May 4, 2007

So, again, I ask you: Which "gay community" are you referring to?

It's the same Homosoviet that gives out the toasters, I imagine.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:20 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Let us never discuss it here again.

Aye.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:22 PM on May 4, 2007

fet writes "He was found to be gay and outed for it, thus making any points he may have had null and void."

Outed? Dude, he did porn. He wasn't exactly keeping it secret.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:23 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Which "gay community" are you referring to?

Seriously? That's all you've got to say? I used a generalization? And yet you've just conflated a faux journalist, a college student, a respected and intelligent author, and a pedophile, just because they prefer cock.

Let's say we're just talking about the folks who frequent atkol.com and Charles Wilson. Do you agree with what they've done? Come on: either outing is fair or its not fair. You either agree with it or you don't.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:24 PM on May 4, 2007

And yet you've just conflated a faux journalist, a college student, a respected and intelligent author, and a pedophile, just because they prefer cock.

Now I'm confused, which is the faux journalist? Sullivan or Guckert?

For some people, like myself, these individuals are conflated because they've promoted Anticock Policies that adversely affect a number of tax-paying, law-abiding Americans, whilst getting away with Enjoying The Cock and, as a tidy bonus, not suffering any social or political consequences to themselves and their loved ones.

Come on: either outing is fair or its not fair.

One more time: Sanchez is a gay porn star. Unless you're gay-for-pay, and that's stretching things, putting yourself in a gay porn movie means you've pretty much outed yourself.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:33 PM on May 4, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

Let's say we're just talking about the folks who frequent atkol.com and Charles Wilson. Do you agree with what they've done? Come on: either outing is fair or its not fair. You either agree with it or you don't.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:24 PM on May 4 [+][!]

If you are a porn star, you cannot be "outed," because there's already commercially available videotape (and rerelease DVDs!) of the activities people are drawing attention to.
posted by mek at 12:35 PM on May 4, 2007

Since when does pedophilia have anything to do with teh gay?
posted by Eekacat at 12:41 PM on May 4, 2007

okay, we're clear on the fact that Sanchez the shitwit denies being gay, right?
so, it's not like "oh, the poor innocent martyr on the altar of righty-hating homos".
it's "I suck dick and bone dudes but, really, I'm only doing a startlingly-vivid impression of 'gay'".
which means Duck Season! Wabbit Season! Wabbit Season! Duck Season! Shoot!!
posted by the sobsister at 1:11 PM on May 4, 2007

Wait, I'm confused... when did Ann Coulter start doing gay pedophile porn?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:13 PM on May 4, 2007

Come on: either outing is fair or its not fair.

That's the same logic that says lying in court in hopes of getting a reduced sentence is the same as lying to the Nazis when they ask if you're hiding Jews in your house, or that murdering a business rival is the same as engaging in lethal self-defence. "Either lying is wrong or it's not wrong! Either killing is wrong or it's not wrong!" Come on. We're not children here, so don't treat us like children.

The decontextualisation of morality is foolish, and using it draw some kind of moral equivalence between the bullying right-wing blowhard and the people working to discredit him in the eyes of his peers... well, shit, let's recall the Fellowship, because killing Sauron makes us just as bad as him.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:25 PM on May 4, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

Not only does he deny being gay, he has homophobic and anti-transgender content on his blog.

Therefore it's perfectly fine in my book to call him a hypocrite.
posted by desjardins at 1:33 PM on May 4, 2007

Therefore it's perfectly fine in my book to call him a hypocrite.

Or he's got some pretty serious self-loathing issues.

(C'mon Matt! Turn that self-loathing into self-loving!)
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:37 PM on May 4, 2007

Unless you're gay-for-pay, and that's stretching things...

It certainly would be. Ouch.

Also, isn't it worth mentioning that this guy is a jerk for allowing himself to be touted as a hero by people who unjustly hate him (and those like him) for who he is? Or that he is a jerk for allowing himself to be touted as a hero by people who would undoubtedly have publicly denounced him instead, had they known that he was gay?
posted by nzero at 1:49 PM on May 4, 2007

On preview, also what desjardins said.
posted by nzero at 1:50 PM on May 4, 2007

Not only does he deny being gay, he has homophobic and anti-transgender content on his blog.

This is what I asked for, and what was missing from the post itself. However, this is what you linked to:

"Pride parades have become a quasi-"legitimate" holiday or festivity because they mostly take place during the day, when some are still fairly rested after only a little more than 48 hours of sleep deprivation."

"the gay fundamentalists are very aggressive to attack any and all who are not in lockstep with their "way of thinking."

"The LGBT community will be working with the owners of the show, ABC, to ensure a "positive portrayal" of the trans gender community."

These links look are incomprehensible, stupid, and weird, but not hypocritical. I don't agree with them at all, insofar as I understand them (which I don't entirely.) He quotes Newsmax, Ronnie Floyd, and Jimmy Kimmel... why does he deserve anyone's attention, let alone their enmity? He's not the sharpest tool in the shed and he's got some self-hatred issues that I don't really care to parse. But hypocrisy? I still don't see it.

And yeah: the guy lied about being gay. A lot of people still have to do that. He's basically a college student with a very poorly written blog; I don't see what the big deal is, and the hatchet job makes him out to be the victim he portrays himself as. This is not a case in which I see the value of outing.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:07 PM on May 4, 2007

And yeah: the guy lied about being gay. A lot of people still have to do that. He's basically a college student with a very poorly written blog; I don't see what the big deal is, and the hatchet job makes him out to be the victim he portrays himself as. This is not a case in which I see the value of outing.

He's a homosexual who wants to dance in and out of the closet as it suits him so that he can cuddle up to people who hate homosexuals and advocate a range of treatment for them that ranges from criminalisation to outright execution. He's not just some random dude. He's a dude who's attempting to be part of the dominator group and part of the dominated group at once, gaining the benefits of each without suffering the harms inflicted on dominated classes.

If he wasn't carrying water for the right-wing glbt-haters, it wouldn't be an issue. But he wants to benefit from bashing on homosexuals and cuddling up to violent homophobes, and under these circumstances, I'd say that not yanking him out of the closet would be the wrong action.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:15 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Just for the record, because people keep referring to Matt Sanchez as a "college student," I want to make it clear that he is 37 and is a student in the Columbia University school of General Studies, which is a "non-traditional learner" program (i.e. college for people who didn't go at the typical age), not Columbia College, the school's undergraduate humanities program.

So, let's be clear that his recent antics didn't take place when he was 19 or 20, but when he was in his mid to late 30's. That said, his movies were in fact made between the ages of 22 and 29.
posted by sneakin at 2:16 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

(C'mon Matt! Turn that self-loathing into self-loving!)

He hasn't already done a solo film?
posted by me & my monkey at 2:18 PM on May 4, 2007

p.s. Touched by an Anal screening is in order at a future meetup, for sure.
posted by sneakin at 2:19 PM on May 4, 2007

First off, it's precious to see people thinking that if we "stop discussing Coulter" she'll go away. I really wish this was the case, but it's not. For as hateful and bigoted as she is, she's not a fring figure to Republicans. Quite the contrary -- she headlines their biggest annual events. She's both their rock-star and their king-maker.

I totally agree that she has no place in civil discourse, and yet -- over and over again -- she get's to drop comments like "raghead," "faggot," or suggestions that SCOTUS judges should be assasinated, and she gets a pass from the right (as a comedian) and from the left (oh she doesn't matter). I can assure you, she really does matter.

anotherpanacea, you're being surprisingly dense on this one. The problem many gays have with Sanchez is the hypocrisy, not the Republican-ness. Look at at timeline here -- before he was outed as a pornstar, he was grooming himself for a position in Republican punditry. In itself, that'd be nothing new (ask Andrew Sullivan), but he was trying to hide the fact that he'd done gay porn before military audiences that would not let him into the room if they'd known. Simple as that.
posted by bardic at 2:23 PM on May 4, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

(Or what Pope Guilty said.)
posted by bardic at 2:24 PM on May 4, 2007

Unless you're gay-for-pay, and that's stretching things, putting yourself in a gay porn movie means you've pretty much outed yourself.

He managed to keep his status in the Marines after doing those movies. You're always 'out' to some people: the people who see you in the clubs, your partners, their friends, maybe even the forty people who actually saw your porn video before you were famous. But you can still 'out' a person to their boss and family, because those people don't watch gay porn, they don't cruise, and they're not a part of the community.

Aiming to ruin a person's personal and professional life just because you don't agree with them is cruel. That's doubly true when the person is not very bright; you're not really attacking a coherent position, but rather an individual who can't adequately defend himself.

He's a homosexual who wants to dance in and out of the closet as it suits him so that he can cuddle up to people who hate homosexuals and advocate a range of treatment for them that ranges from criminalisation to outright execution.

Look, if someone would just show me evidence that he's actually advocated 'criminalization' or 'execution,' I'd agree with you immediately. People like that DO deserve to be outed. But none of the links so far have made that case.

anotherpanacea, you're being surprisingly dense on this one.

Well, I'm pleased it's a surprise. I just disagree that every would-be pundit deserves a full background check. Haven't you ever done anything you regret?
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:32 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Aiming to ruin a person's personal and professional life just because you don't agree with them is cruel.

Nobody gave a damn that he did fuck movies when he was in the Marines, obviously. I'm sure someone knew, but there was no movement to out him in a way that would get him fired.

Please read this next part slowly -- Many gays decided he was fair game when he started to climb the Republican punditry ladder and pal around with a known homophobe like Coulter. He had his picture taken with her at the same national conference where Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot," and a Republican audience laughed their heads off. He was cozying up to known Republican bigots and hoping to get a pass not just on the fact that he was gay, but that he was something of a minor icon in gay porn.

As for things I regret? Certainly. But if I was a former White supremacist, I would be shocked in B'nai Brith turned me down for an internship. Go figure.
posted by bardic at 2:42 PM on May 4, 2007

err, wouldn't be shocked
posted by bardic at 2:43 PM on May 4, 2007

He managed to keep his status in the Marines after doing those movies. You're always 'out' to some people: the people who see you in the clubs, your partners, their friends, maybe even the forty people who actually saw your porn video before you were famous. But you can still 'out' a person to their boss and family, because those people don't watch gay porn, they don't cruise, and they're not a part of the community.

You're still not listening: His sexual identity is a matter of public record, by virtue of being a paid, willing participant in an adult entertainment feature made after 1988, when documenting participants became a legal requirement. Sanchez outed himself of his own volition.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:00 PM on May 4, 2007

BP- Your address is a matter of public record, too. But it'd still be rude to post it on the internet especially if I did it based on a disagreement. There's a big difference between a 'public figure' and the public record.

bardic- I've applied all my close reading skills to the argument you're making, and while I think it's insufficient, I also think we've reached 'difference of opinion,' and can safely leave 'misunderstanding' behind. In my opinion, photo ops with bad people do not make you bad, nor deserving of the same treatment as those people. Wanting to have friends in high places does not immediately place you in the same high place from which your former partners have the right to push you. As a strategy, even, I think we're better off with lame pundits like Sanchez than with relatively effective ones like Bill O'Reilly.

In my opinion, outing should be reserved for very strong cases of hypocrisy: if Dick Cheney were gay, for instance, instead of his daughter. I'm still waiting for Pope Guilty's 'execution' claims to be verified, after which I will change my position on the matter.

You can probably read this part pretty fast. It's not profound: I have a blog. I have probably said stupid things on it (and here) though I hope nothing of Sanchez-like proportions. I am also a semi-public figure, since I teach college students and sometimes participate in conferences, round tables, and debates that are recorded for a wider audience. Nonetheless, I would prefer that independent journalists not dig up my shortlived career in pornography to punish me for some deficit in my opinions. real or perceived.
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:31 PM on May 4, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

The standard is calling for "execution"? Try a little empathy here -- can you not see how a gay adult, living his or her life, might find Sanchez perfectly "outable" when he starts cozying up to bigots, the very ones who would deny them the rights to marry and adopt children of their own?

Very weird standards you've got.

Simple task -- go ask some gay people, especially those who would like to simply get married and maybe adopt some kids, why this might bother them so much. Also, I find it hard to believe how much slack you're cutting Sanchez here. If it was his life-long dream to become the next Gannon/Guckert, then I guess we should all shed a few tears for him. But I really doubt it. Like most of us, he's an opportunist (a 37 year-old one at that). He saw a chance to get a few books published, do a few speaking gigs, and basically live the life of a wing-nut welfare recipient. It didn't work out.

But let's be realistic here -- it's not as if he wanted to build orphanages and cure cancer. He tried to position himself as something he wasn't (all-American vet fighting the good fight against damn dirty libruls), and he got burned. Call me crazy, but I'm sure he'll land on his feet. To argue that his career has been "ruined" is ludicrous.
posted by bardic at 3:46 PM on May 4, 2007

He's not being punished for his opinions. He's being held accountable for them. If I was hanging out with anti-Semites, accepting awards from them, having my picture taken with a woman who called a presidential candidate an anti-Semitic slur, someone would be perfectly right to tell the world that my mother is Jewish. I can have all the anti-Semitic opinions I want, but the ridiculousness of it can and should be pointed out. Oh, my anti-Semitic buddies no longer want to hang out with me? Boo hoo.
posted by desjardins at 3:59 PM on May 4, 2007

Let's be clear: I don't think there are any cogent arguments against allowing gay couples to marry. None. I'm happy to explain my position to anyone who asks, and I'll generally force the point if I see someone trying to make a public claim that gay marriage can be opposed justly.

But we were talking about the value of tu quoque here. If Sanchez were enunciating homophobic policies, I'd think he was being a hypocrite. Pope Guilty suggested that he advocates criminalization and execution. For a gay man to suggest criminalization is both hypocritical and patently absurd: he's in conflict with himself, calling for his own death. He can't possibly mean it! If necessary, I believe that hypocrites should be outed in order to oppose unjust policies.

But I haven't even see evidence that he opposed gay marriage! I'm sure I must be missing something, because you all seem so certain of his hypocrisy. But what I see is that he knows some homophobes, slightly, and that he lied about his sexuality, and that he supports conservative social values and the US military. None of that is hypocritical (especially lying about his sex life.) I disagree with it all, but I want to live in a country where you can disagree with someone without hating them or trying to destroy them.

To argue that his career has been "ruined" is ludicrous.

As I understand it, publicizing his sexuality causes him to lose his educational benefits from the Marines, thus causing him to drop out of college. Career as college student: ruined. Outing him supports the homophobic military agenda; it's malicious. It's also a little hypocritical, especially for Charles Wilson who only attacks people with whom he disagrees, while preserving the anonymity of those he calls 'real heros.'
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:05 PM on May 4, 2007

Actually, the fallacy you keep engaging in is reductio ad absurdum. You're saying that Sanchez's hypocrisy is not such a big deal because, c'mon, he's not advocating that all gays be marched into showers and gassed! Amirite?

As desjardins points out, Sanchez has a right to his opinions, his blog, his military career, and his on-screen fucking. But he got into some trouble when he tried to fashion a career as a conservative talking head, a group who for the most part spend a lot of time and energy demonzing gays, and was more publically "outed." In fact, as BP points out, he outed himself when he starred in gay porn.

Further, you have no evidence that his "career" as a college student has been ruined, but I've come to realize that a lack of evidence means nothing to you. Do you really think Columbia, of all places, would boot him for being gay or doing porn? You're either incredibly thick or incredibly disingenuous.
posted by bardic at 4:16 PM on May 4, 2007

Do you really think Columbia, of all places, would boot him for being gay or doing porn? You're either incredibly thick or incredibly disingenuous.

He's paying for Columbia with his USMC educational benefits. You know: join the military, go to college? It's a lot of money, but you lose it if you're dishonorably discharged, as he will be if the Marine Corps investigation shows evidence of his homesexuality. With Wilson on the case, I'm guessing they will.

I thought we were doing pretty well there for a bit, bardic. I'm sorry you think I'm the enemy, too.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:40 PM on May 4, 2007

Do you really think Columbia, of all places, would boot him for being gay or doing porn?

They will boot him for not being able to pay tuition, which is presumably paid for through his military service.

what I see is that he knows some homophobes, slightly

and wants to know them better, and to be identified with them, and be accepted as one of their group.

I agree with you that this isn't entirely fair to him, but he had the very bad luck to cozy up to Coulter at the same time as she was busy flinging anti-gay epithets. And, he's responsible to some extent for his situation.

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be."
posted by me & my monkey at 4:44 PM on May 4, 2007

Um, you're a big fan of "guessing" and presenting said guesses as fact. That's annoying, among other things.
posted by bardic at 4:44 PM on May 4, 2007

(And again, you're missing a major point here anotherpanacea -- he wasn't "outed" as much as he was "connect-the-dots'ed." Anybody familiar with gay porn would have known who this guy was right away, because he made the decision to do gay porn. I honestly hope he doesn't lose his educational benefits (although I'm looking, and I'm not sure he's still enrolled), but he'd only have himself to blame for that. But everything else that's happened to him? The fact that's he's highly likely to be black-listed from Republican/conservative social and political events? Yeah, that makes me laugh. There's a reason Dante treated hypocrites the way he did.)
posted by bardic at 4:48 PM on May 4, 2007

Um, you level accusations without proof. That's malicious, among other things.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:49 PM on May 4, 2007

You keep using that word. I think it means:

Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

There's a two part test there: the act (gay sex) must contradict the stated belief (????)
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:51 PM on May 4, 2007

I mean, Gays are supposed to be one of the liberal tribes, right? Like Jews, Blacks, and Sociology Majors; Sanchez is a traitor to his caste! WE MUST OUT HIM, AMIRITE?

OK, that's over the top, but I'm getting a, "Conservative Gays - by their very existence - are hypocrites," vibe here. That's silly. Ann Coulter thrives off of that kind of tribalism.
posted by Richard Daly at 4:55 PM on May 4, 2007

Am I the only person who RTFA? Of course gays can be Republicans. But what gays, and gay Republicans like Andrew Sullivan, find hypocritical about Sanchez is that he apparently tried to score points with slur-droppers like Coulter, and those of her ilk who are actively working to keep gays as second class citizens. It looks as if he tried to make a jump into a career as an author and public speaker, and now that people simply made the connection that he's a former gay pornstar, he's crying out that he's being persecuted by librul-gay-fascists.

Kind of silly to defend a hypocrite like that, isn't it?
posted by bardic at 5:26 PM on May 4, 2007

FYI, he admits he wasn't "outed" because it was already "out there."
posted by desjardins at 5:47 PM on May 4, 2007

Since you're repeating yourself, I'll ask again: in what way does the the act (gay sex) contradict the stated belief? What policies does this man advocate? What laws does he want passed? I don't see any, to date, and I've been looking. He's just a bad cultural commentator, a la Coulter, playing politics like it's a sport, rooting for the away team: Ra Ra Ra Republicans!

Here's what he said about Coulter's words: "Sure, I had my picture taken with Ann Coulter. I don't agree with what she said, but anyone in the military would defend her right to say it. I'm not apologizing for it."

Look, bardic: you could win this argument SO EASILY. All you need to do is show me some policy proposal this guy has floated that contradicts his actions. I want to be wrong here; I'd rather side with you and Blazecock than some prick with a hard-on for the Coutlers of the world. I just need your help, because my google-fu is failing me; I can't find any evidence that this guy has enough substance to justify the hatchet job.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:50 PM on May 4, 2007

That's great that after cuddling with a noted bigot like Coulter, he defended her right to free speech. I'd defend it to, or anybody's. But at what point don't you think association with Coulter and Hannity and O'Reilly (going by his wiki entry) constitutes a collaboration of sorts with anti-gay forces? I don't think he has to go around screaming "God Hates Fags" for at least a few eyebrows to be raised.

And again, for at least the third time, it's not the sex acts that make him a hypocrite. It's the fact that he looked to be trying to fashion a Guckert-esque career as a conservative media figure and speaker before people noted that he'd done gay porn. If I'm wrong about this -- if it was just a wild coincidence that he was at CPAC dishing with Coulter because he's a big fan -- I'd be surprised. But I'm not wrong about this.

But as I've suggested before, you don't need to take my word for it. Just ask some gay people themselves, particularly those who'd like to get married or adopt. Their sense of frustration with this kind of hypocrisy ("It's ok if I did it, but not when you do it!") is rampant on the right. If you don't consider this to be a form of hypocrisy, I'd hate to meet someone who actually fit the bill for you.
posted by bardic at 6:10 PM on May 4, 2007

BFF means what in this post?
posted by caddis at 6:18 PM on May 4, 2007

Best Friend 4ever.

The usage is more than a little forced in this context.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:22 PM on May 4, 2007

are you sure, there are other meanings that fit, although not so nice
posted by caddis at 6:29 PM on May 4, 2007

Not sure, not sure...
posted by mr_roboto at 6:31 PM on May 4, 2007

anotherpanacea writes "All you need to do is show me some policy proposal this guy has floated that contradicts his actions."

Actually, when you get involved with politics as a public figure, you better believe people will check you out. If you've starred in gay porn for seven years, well, you might as well accept the fact that it's going to come up. That's reality. Nobody made Sanchez get involved in politics. It's a vicious and cruel game, and anyone who goes into it full-bore like he did will be thoroughly beaten against the rocks to see what comes out. If he survives it, then he can play the game. If not ... well, he's not the first. He's the willing participant whose actions count the most. And he's sure as hell not any victim.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:45 PM on May 4, 2007

Woah there, panacea. I never said that Sanchez advocates killing gays. I'm saying that the right-wing loonies of the sort that he's cuddling up to are a group that contains individuals of that mindset. Go back and read my comment again.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:55 PM on May 4, 2007

On learning that Sanchez might lose his tuition waivers, Coulter was heard to remark "tough luck, faggot."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:24 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I didn't even know what Metafilter was until about five minutes ago when someone told me that there had been something here about my new website concerning Matthew Sanchez.

For a full accounting of why I wrote the site, people should read the page there titled, "About This Site (Why?!)" Of everything I wrote there, the deciding factor was the wounded marine I mentioned. So it might make sense to click on the hyperlink about the guy, although I realize the hyperlinks are the death of us all.

Nelson, I laughed at your comment about investigating St. Nick. When I was six years old, the folks took me to see Santa Claus at the local shopping center (this was before they called them "malls").

I crawled up into the guy's lap, looked at him and said, "I don't believe in you." My dad had been a reporter. He just about fell over laughing and said, "Charlie's going to be a reporter."

Sanchez is a public figure, and not by accident. His personal background is fair game. This is especially so when it highlights his hypocrisy, which is ALWAYS a story in America. After all, it is our most abundant natural resource.

Fact is, Mr. Sanchez has lied at each and every turn. It's hard to know what's the most outrageous thing about him. To me, I guess it's that he accepted all those compliments for his wartime service after he had been inactivated for medical reasons.

Porn 'n whoring aside, the guy should have a lower profile for that reason alone. People are dying and being terribly wounded in Iraq. Sanchez has no business strutting around as if he's the real thing when in fact he's on permanent medical furlough. See the site's "Matt's 15 Minutes" page for detail.

The other thing to take note of is that Wikipedia has printed an absolute travesty of a whitewash on the guy. Take a look at this page for a full explanation.

I'm new to Metafilter so I have no idea what the folks here are like, but if anyone here is active with Wikipedia they should look into it. I went ballistic about it so they've banned me, at least for a while. They really hated it when I called them a bunch of Nixonian twits.

Anyway, I welcome comments on the website forum. You can see that there's no advertising on my site, and there isn't going to be any advertising. History was one of my majors. I wrote the site because I wanted there to be a complete and accurate historical record on this fool.
posted by Charles Wilson at 7:26 PM on May 4, 2007 [11 favorites has favorites]

as he will be if the Marine Corps investigation shows evidence of his homesexuality

Yep -- the finely appointed living room with silk orchids, taffeta curtains and fine-cut Venetian glass chandeliers were a dead-fucking-giveaway!!!
posted by ericb at 7:53 PM on May 4, 2007

Charles Wilson FTW!
posted by sneakin at 7:58 PM on May 4, 2007

Charles Wilson -- welcome to MetaFilter. I hope you stick around. There is a compelling community here; often engaging discussions, as well as the discovery of great stuff on the Web and in our shared world!
posted by ericb at 7:59 PM on May 4, 2007

I feel sorry for the guy. Some kid that wrote a letter to his school paper, thrown into the limelight by the right and dicredited by the left. His only crime was not being smart enough to play ball with the media machines that coulter and edwards represent.

Maybe he had it coming to him, maybe not, but to me its just the media of politics once again taking something good (his original letter) and twisting it into somthing ugly (pretty much everything since letter)

Please do not re-print this posting. I did some pretty raunchy stuff before becoming boring.
posted by BostonJake at 8:01 PM on May 4, 2007

ericb, I'd say the USMC has possessed evidence of Matt Sanchez's homosexuality for a while now, and it's not flowers or fabric. The only question left is just how tough they're going to be on him. My prediction is an OTH ("other than honorable") discharge. Which, by the way, will not be directly disclosable because of federal privacy rules. But I've got a Freedom of Information Act request in for the USMC's internal report on the matter.

What really surprises me lately is Wikipedia. What those guys have done is just amazing. They've allowed the guy to essentially write his own fawning profile. They kept content from some whackjob evangelical "ex-gay" site, while ruling everything from radio interviews and documentary proof from blogs to somehow be out of bounds.

It's really phenomenal. I just wasn't aware of what Wikipedia is about. Still a good source for those anodyne profiles of this or that, but never for something that has any hint of controversy.
posted by Charles Wilson at 8:06 PM on May 4, 2007

BostonJake, what's this letter to the editor that you're referring to?
posted by Charles Wilson at 8:08 PM on May 4, 2007

Charles Wilson, can you give some links or other "evidence" of what Wikipedia has done to his page? I am curious.
posted by sneakin at 8:11 PM on May 4, 2007

See the site's "Matt's 15 Minutes" page for detail.

"...he had been placed in the USMC's inactive reserve. A normal reserve commitment lasts for eight years. Sanchez was inactivated two years and one month after he joined the Marine Corps.

Why did he get out early? An undisclosed medical problem. Now, the military doesn't release reservists from their service obligation for passing medical issues, especially in wartime. If Sanchez's problem was serious enough to get him bounced from reserve duty, it was unlikely that he'd ever face hostile fire on his country's behalf.

None of that kept him from presenting himself as Corporal Sanchez, USMC. Technically accurate, but something of a stretch for someone who knew he'd never be activated. Hey, bud, it's wartime. Thousands of service personnel are getting killed and wounded. But not you, and more importantly, never you. Not that you ever mentioned it to the people who praised you for your wartime service to your country.

Be that as it may, all that chest-beatin' got the attention of the usual suspects, and soon Sanchez was parading his story, and more importantly himself, on national TV. You guessed it: Fox News, including the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes. That got the attention of the Conservative Political Action Conference, and on March 2, 2007 it gave him a 'Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award' for his bravery in Columbia's extracurricular killing fields."

Fuck the hypocrisy that oozes from you denying your "gayness." What about that of you presenting yourself as a "noble warrior?"
posted by ericb at 8:11 PM on May 4, 2007

sneakin, I'm brand new to Wikipedia. They've got this incredibly arcane set of procedures that extends to the navigation of pages. You can go into the discussion section of an article and look around for the editing info and various versions, but it gets really complicated because things are archived and blocked and locked, and there are bits and pieces of discussions in various cubbyholes.

One thing it does it make it impossible to link. So, if you go back to the Wikipedia Meltdown page on my site, read it and then go to the article itself, that's the best I can do. Christ, getting the goods on Sanchez was hard enough. I'm not sure I'm up for doing the full Cleveland on these tinpot Haldemanns at Wikipedia. But I can say this much: The Wikipedia article on Sanchez is a big, tall, stinking, steaming, smoking pile of horseshit, not to put too fine a point on it.
posted by Charles Wilson at 8:17 PM on May 4, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

What really surprises me lately is Wikipedia.... They've allowed the guy to essentially write his own fawning profile.

WP currently tends to err very strongly against possible libel. If there's a well-sourced fact and it's noteworthy, then by all means put it in the article. But don't be surprised if others disagree with the credibility or noteworthiness of a claim.

WP also ends very strongly against self-authored puff entries as part of the neutral point of view (NPOV) guidelines and policy. So if you see a claim written in a fawning way, reword it. If you see a claim that has no source, either add a {{fact}} tag to it or delete it.
posted by zippy at 8:25 PM on May 4, 2007

But at what point don't you think association with Coulter and Hannity and O'Reilly (going by his wiki entry) constitutes a collaboration of sorts with anti-gay forces?

"I have here in my hand a list of 205 names that were known to the RNC chairman as being gay who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping policy in the RNC."

names and ideologies change, but the game remains the same
posted by pyramid termite at 8:49 PM on May 4, 2007

Here's what he said about Coulter's words: "Sure, I had my picture taken with Ann Coulter. I don't agree with what she said ..."

Why would you have your picture taken with someone you find objectionable?
posted by me & my monkey at 9:05 PM on May 4, 2007

BostonJake, what's this letter to the editor that you're referring to?
I read this letter to the editor, but I think you miss my greater point. Or maybe you seek to paint me the fool and bury my opinion under my own inadequacies, either way I still hold to the context of my posting: I like when people write in and voice their opinion- even if I disagree; I don’t like when people get used and discarded by forces greater than themselves- especially if they don’t seem that bright.
posted by BostonJake at 9:18 PM on May 4, 2007

zippy, the nomenclature of Wikipedia is a little bit like Roberts Rules of Order. It is susceptible to misuse by students of parliamentary procedure. In the case of Wikipedia's article about Sanchez, the reality is that they have stood by Sanchez's having re-written his own biography in an entirely self-serving manner. I'm a res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") kind of guy, and the Wikipedia article about Sanchez is an exercise in knob-polishing, blessed by Wikipedia's editors who have blocked editing and now even comments.

BostonJake, it's hard for me to take anything Sanchez writes too seriously, given that he is so clearly someone who will say anything that comes to mind at any given moment without regard to underlying reality or logical consistency. "Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive." The guy is a circus.

Specifically:

As a member of Lucha, Karina Garcia is dedicated to persuading high school students that they don't have to join the military to get an education, and insists she is anti-war.

That's an assertion that's not backed by evidence of any kind. It's an ad-hominem attack, an exercise in guilt by association.

As a corporal in the Marine Corps reserves, I'm the first to admit I'm not the most knowledgeable person to speak on military affairs, but next to the members of Lucha I'm a friggin' four-star general.

This is an exercise in credibility by association and in the parading of semi-information. In fact, Sanchez is an inactive reservist whose sum total of active duty is six months, consisiting of boot camp and refrigerator mechanic training, followed by a year and a half of reporting to an office for two days a month to write press releases.

After which, he was inactivated for an undisclosed medical problem that insured he would never, ever face hostilities. There's a war on. People are being killed and horriibly wounded. Matt Sanchez is not someone who should be wrapping himself in the USMC's mantle. Period.

Groups like Lucha believe that if we were just dedicated to eliminating militaries around the world (starting with our own) we would also eliminate any need for war. By that logic, if we got rid of the police we would put an end to crime.

Another assertion unsupported by evidence. Sanchez didn't present Lucha's policy statement supporting his characterization. This is a standard tactic put forth by fanatics of all kinds: reductio ad absurdum ("reduction to the absurd"). Rather than debate an opponent's actual ideas, instead caricature your adversary, cast your opponent as a caricature and demolish the caricature. It's a lazy coward's way of debate, which in Sanchez's case is appropriate given that we're talking about someone with virtually no military experience and a free pass to escape wartime risk while claiming all the benefits of association with his betters.

I can't shake the feeling that this is just the latest form of entertainment that everyone knows is fake, even if the audience shows up to watch the spectacle, and cheer the pretenders on.

Matt didn't realize it, but he aptly described his own appearances on Fox News and at the CPAC meeting.
posted by Charles Wilson at 11:06 PM on May 4, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Some kid that wrote a letter to his school paper

36 years old still a kid to you?

pyramid: exposing wankery is not McCarthyism. That ATM the movement right has more wankers of a higher wankage is a historical accident.

Tough-guy Marine accuses treasonous Left of hate-speech harrassment on campus, wins Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award, then his acting career is exposed.

If these are the facts, let the chips fall as they may.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:38 PM on May 4, 2007

36 years old still a kid to you?

Hey, George W referred to everything he did before age 40 as "youthful indiscretions." It's the Republican version of personal responsibility.
posted by Charles Wilson at 12:03 AM on May 5, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

exposing wankery is not McCarthyism.

which is why people are being exposed because they associate with people of a certain political persuasion

i think it's ALL wankery ... especially seeing as this guy isn't running for public office

let's see ... the last few political controversies around here have been ... sen gravel daring to ask a question about nuking iran and getting lambasted for it ... whether obama should have bought his own name back from some guy on myspace for 39k ... and now, whether it's fair to point out that some guy who hangs around with ann coulter and company and makes noises about "oppressive leftists" was a gay porn star

so that's one serious controversy with potential real consequence being disregarded and two laughable pissing contests being taken seriously

no, it's not pure mccarthyism ... it's some ungodly cross between mccarthyism, the national enquirer and the weekly world news ... is this what we're coming to as a country? ... is there anyway one can even discuss the matter at hand without sounding like a vengeful, prurient and puritanical wanker?

i thumb my nose at the whole business ... this isn't politics, it's a parody of politics
posted by pyramid termite at 12:17 AM on May 5, 2007

pyramid termite, what's your point?
posted by Charles Wilson at 12:24 AM on May 5, 2007

this isn't politics, it's a parody of politics

exposing silliness, eg. this Sanchez clown, in the discourse and power structure purifies the national polity, not weakens it.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:43 AM on May 5, 2007

"That ATM the movement right has more wankers of a higher wankage is a historical accident."

ATM? Ass-to-mouth? (Christ, I've been on the internet too long.)
posted by klangklangston at 7:10 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Okay bardic, I agree that "It's ok if I did it, but not when you do it!" would count as hypocrisy. Here's the question: has this guy ever said that? I mean, conservatism is pretty broad, and it certainly includes room for libertarians who want the freedom to engage in nastiness at home. What kind of politics does the guy have? Does he even have politics?

Charles Wilson- you're clearly a talented journalist, and I like the idea of 'news in miniature.' However, I have to wonder if your talents were misused in this case. Specifically, it seems that you've devoted your efforts to ensuring that a horribly unjust Marine Corps investigation of a man's sex life forces him out of inactive reserves and takes his veteran's benefits, including the education that might help him see the error of his ways. He's not a very bright pundit: did we ever need to worry that he'd rise to a position of importance?
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:17 AM on May 5, 2007

the Wikipedia article about Sanchez is an exercise in knob-polishing, blessed by Wikipedia's editors who have blocked editing and now even comments

This is the reason I've pretty much given up on submitting new articles and content to Wikipedia. I had a run-in with a creep who was on Wikipedia as both an administrator and an editor. He removed my edits in two separate places (neither of which violated WP policy) and then threatened to block my account if I put the material back. Even with mediation, getting bullied really soured WP for me and I doubt I'll go back, at least until a clearer line is drawn between editing and administration.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:24 AM on May 5, 2007

pyramid termite, what's your point?

that i might as well read about britney's latest troubles if i want to be well-informed about important events

that people are just about being accused of being "fellow travelers" in this thread

that politics in this country is more and more resembling a shit-flinging contest between monkeys and you are contributing to it

that all of the above are as dangerous to our republic as intolerant, bigoted idiots are

that i've wasted enough time on this irrelevant, moronic garbage as it is ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:48 AM on May 5, 2007

I don't know that he's such a hypocrite--it seems as though he has just decided to take a different direction in his life.

“Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don’t like it. That’s not hypocrisy talking; that’s just experience,” he wrote. “I can tell you, though, that by the time I finished my brief tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers interested only in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high.”

Or not.

Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate called to Marine Corps Mobilization Command in Kansas City, Mo., on temporary orders that expire Saturday, informed Reserve Cpl. Matt Sanchez of the allegations against him in a March 22 e-mail that advised Sanchez of his rights.

Jones wrote that Sanchez’s participation in porn films was part of the investigation, but that two of the three allegations against him involved lying “to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council and U-Haul Corporation” about deploying to Iraq at the commandant’s request.

“Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq” by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul, Jones wrote.

I guess that the only reaction to this guy that I can dredge up is pity. Can we all at least agree that he's pretty fucked up?
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:05 AM on May 5, 2007

I agree that "It's ok if I did it, but not when you do it!" would count as hypocrisy. Here's the question: has this guy ever said that? - anotherpanacea

In this interview, he says that being gay is bad.

In his blog, he says, "With an ever increasing 'gay is ok' society, everyone is effected [sic] by a 'gay agenda'." In the comments to that post, he compares homosexuality to bigamy and incest.

Also, BostonJake - he wasn't "thrown into the limelight by the right." He voluntarily appeared on several conservative TV and radio shows, as well as accepting an award from a conservative group. Even if he didn't seek that out, he certainly didn't have to accept the invitations. The left only noticed him after he made public appearances with conservatives.
posted by desjardins at 8:07 AM on May 5, 2007

did we ever need to worry that he'd rise to a position of importance?

That entirely depends on whether or not we have an election next year. I hear the DOJ may be hiring.
posted by trondant at 9:28 AM on May 5, 2007

Well, in the text you quoted, 'gay agenda' links to this site.

Well, I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual. It follows below:

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.

2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)"

You don't think maybe he was joking?
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:49 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

his bravery in Columbia's extracurricular killing fields

Wilson you kwack me up.

Sanchez seems like a small and somewhat pathetic fish to fry, but I guess it's not unfair to expose him seeing as the guy chose to promote himself as some kind of symbol. (I would feel a little bad if he lost veterans' benefits because of teh gay/porn, etc., but would serving two years reserve really give someone benefits? I would guess not.)
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:54 AM on May 5, 2007

pyramid termite, who's forcing you to comment here? You're right; you're wasting your time.

anotherpanacea, I hope the USMC will throw him out not for his sexual orientation but for the other reasons.

leftcoastbob, it's interesting that you pity him. I've had all sorts of mixed feelings about it, including pity. You know, when I was in high school being gay was about being the fool, or more to the point trying to conceal being gay so as not to be the fool. So I've always had sympathy with fools. I do feel sorry for the guy to some degree.

Blazecoco Pileon, interesting about your Wikipedia experiences. Sounds like they've got an insider clique running that show. My partner thinks I need to investigate Wikipedia. I told him not to spoil my post-coital cigar moment with completing the Sanchez blog.
posted by Charles Wilson at 9:59 AM on May 5, 2007

Sanchez seems like a small and somewhat pathetic fish to fry

Yeah, I hear you. As I did this blog I was thinking the same thing. There was some sheer momentum involved. In for a dime, in for a dollar.
posted by Charles Wilson at 10:01 AM on May 5, 2007

p.s.: ClaudiaCenter, I didn't research the vets' benefits issue but I'd be a bit surprised if he was eligible for anything, although maybe the USMC paid for some of Columbia? I think the fairest thing to do would be to threaten to charge him with enlistment fraud (for lying on his SF 86) and conduct unbecoming (for prostitution while in a drilling status, yuk-yuk) and force him to repay every nickel the Marine Corps ever paid him while he was there. But I doubt they'll go that far. I think they'll just discharge him and be done with it.
posted by Charles Wilson at 10:06 AM on May 5, 2007

Charles, veterans benefits include educational benefits, and they're due to reservists, active or otherwise. Granted, if there's any truth in the allegations that he lied about deployment, he should be hung out to dry. But if he lied on his enlistment application about the porn and the prostitution, I think that's the equivalent of lying about his sexual status, i.e. a justified deception. I'd support a leftist who lied about those things, and it'd be hypocritical for me to wish a rightie would be punished.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:15 AM on May 5, 2007

anotherpanaccea, his statement to Martha Zoller about deployment is ambiguous enough. In any case, though, it's not something the USMC can criminally prosecute because he made it while an inactive reservist and therefore not subject to the UCMJ. The most the Corps can do is use it as the basis of an OTH discharge; if fraud was involved with Sanchez's solicitation of funds from U-Haul and the charity for his so-called "deployment," prosecution is a civilian matter.

The SF-86 form that Sanchez filled out before he enlisted covered all employment, unemployment and self-employment for the seven years prior to 2003. This would have excluded the porn, which he did prior to 1996, but it would have included his escorting. I don't think lying on enlistment forms about being gay (which, by the way, is no longer an issue given DADT) is the same as lying about being a whore; being gay is not the same as being a gay whore.

Now, if the USMC chooses to do it, I think they could successful prosecute Sanchez on an Article 82 charge of fraudulent enlistment for not disclosing his prostitution as "Excellent Top" bewteen 1999 and 2002. I don't think they'll do so for the following reasons:

1. The military has a track record of fraudulent enlistment prosecutions, but it looks like they only include that charge if someone is a) charged with another crime, and b) on active duty when the charges are filed.

2. They'd have to recall Sanchez to active duty to prosecute him. See the previous point.

3. He's got a medical condition that was serious enough to get him inactive during wartime, in a war where the USMC is scraping the bottom of the barrel for people to send to Iraq. If they recall him to active duty to stick him in a brig, they'll be liable for his medical treatment. I'm not sure they'll want that expense.

4. There's a resource allocation issue here. I'm not sure the USMC will want to spend the money on what's essentially a trivial matter.

5. Public relations. If they prosecute him, they'll look harsh to some people (you, for instance), and they'll highlight something they'd rather not highlight. Plus they'll give Sanchez a platform.

Notice that Sanchez has dropped all mention of his military rank and association from his website. There's the makings of a bargain there, in which the idiot shuts up about being a marine in return for not being thrown into a military prison. That's what I think is going to be the outcome.

As for reservists and educational benefits, I did some research on it and it's a very complex issue because, in addition to the standard stuff in what's left of the G.I. Bill, there are other educational programs in each services. It's impossible to know what Sanchez has gotten, or not gotten. Given that he was only with the USMC for two years, I can't imagine that he got a lot, if anything at all, by way of educational bennies.
posted by Charles Wilson at 10:44 AM on May 5, 2007

One other thing. In more than one interview, Sanchez has stated that his recruiters knew about the porn. I ran that one by some USMC people and I am convinced that he lied about that, just as he's lied about a lot of other things. But you can bet that, if the Marine Corps prosecuted him for fraudulent enlistment, he'd find a way to make the claim that his recruiters knew about it. He'd say they knew but omitted it from his forms. Some media outlet would report it, and then you'd be off to the races.

It's probably a can of worms the USMC would prefer to keep closed. Not only that, but given that there's a war on, it's likely that the marines who recruited Sanchez are now in Iraq. Which means that a trial would require them to be brought back here. The closer you look at it, the less likely it seems that they'll criminally prosecute him. I think an OTH discharge is in the cards. The investigator's report should be a good read, anyway.
posted by Charles Wilson at 10:49 AM on May 5, 2007

being gay is not the same as being a gay whore.

While this is obviously true, is prostitution something we should punish prostitutes for? I'm not familiar with any arguments against prostitution worth crediting that focus on the evils of the prostitute: all focus on the damage done to sex workers through their labor. If you'd like to take educational benefits from all the 'johns' in the world, I'd be more interested in discussing the matter.

It's probably a can of worms the USMC would prefer to keep closed.

Three to four service members are discharged from the military every day for their sexual status, even during our present circumstances. It's not a rational policy decision, nor is it efficient, but there's no question that they're committed to it.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:13 AM on May 5, 2007

is prostitution something we should punish prostitutes for?

It's irrelevant here. Sanchez had a legal obligation to disclose his self-employment as an escort. The Marine Corps is many things, one of which is an employer. It has every right to look at someone's employment record and make a judgment about a recruit.

Three to four service members are discharged from the military every day for their sexual status, even during our present circumstances. It's not a rational policy decision, nor is it efficient, but there's no question that they're committed to it.

You need to read more carefully. I was discussing whether they would criminally prosecute Sanchez for enlistment fraud, not whether they'd discharge him from the IRR. I don't think the USMC will criminally prosecute him.
posted by Charles Wilson at 11:28 AM on May 5, 2007

First off, it's precious to see people thinking that if we "stop discussing Coulter" she'll go away.

Dude, I don't give a frog's fat ass whether she 'goes away,' or not. There's always going to be idiots in the world and we've given this particular one way more of the attention and outrage that she uses and fuel than she deserves, as far as I'm concerned.
posted by jonmc at 11:29 AM on May 5, 2007

There's always going to be idiots in the world and we've given this particular one way more of the attention and outrage that she uses and fuel than she deserves

Yours is the "ignore it and it'll go away" strategy. Sometimes that's the way to go, but I'd remind you that Ann Coulter continues to have broad media reach. She and other hate-mongers are influencing voters. I think they have to be answered.
posted by Charles Wilson at 11:38 AM on May 5, 2007

Yours is the "ignore it and it'll go away" strategy.

Your's is the 'if I get indignant enough she'll go away' which won't work because she's depending on your indignance to fuel her campaigns. There are always going to be assholes in the world, that's just a simple fact, and Coulter exists for one purpose, to get liberals riled up. We stop doing that and she serves no purpose. But getting indignant is so easy and feels so good, so we don't.
posted by jonmc at 1:44 PM on May 5, 2007

Coulter exists for one purpose, to get liberals riled up

She does get liberals riled up, but her primary purpose is to spread the wingnut gospel to wingnuts and those who might become wingnuts. She's in newspapers all over the country and on electronic media. If she were just one more loudmouth on the Internet, I'd agree with you. But she's a lot more than that. I can't share your blase attitude about it.
posted by Charles Wilson at 1:48 PM on May 5, 2007

Your's is the 'if I get indignant enough she'll go away'

Jonmc, I respectfully disagree. As I said upthread, the problem with Coulter is that she gets two passes. If she drops a slur, the right says it's ok because she's a comedian. The left says, oh she doesn't matter.

For the umpteenth time -- she. freakin'. matters. She was the final speaker at a convention that headlined Dick Cheney. She sells tons of books. Mitt Romney is on record saying he's a huge fan of hers. This man might be the next Republican nominee, if national pundits are to be believed.

I agree that self-righteousness isn't the best cure for this stuff, but it's a pretty small price in comparison. IMO, Charles Wilson hasn't saved the world, but he's at least taken the time to shine some light on at least one odious corner of the Republican machine ca. 2007.

I mean, it's the intarweb, right? What would we have if not people like me and you and others with too much time on our hands? (And guys like pyramid termite posting multiple times to cry out how useless all of this is?)
posted by bardic at 2:28 PM on May 5, 2007

Charles Wilson: If you want to make any headway on Wikipedia, don't violate harassment policy. Also, I would suggest you stop thinking of it as a "thing" -- e.g. "Wikipedia has decided" -- and instead realize that other editors are people (cf. harassment policy) and have different points of view (cf. neutral point of view policy) and that potentially libelous statements such as some of your claims -- as well researched as you may think they are -- are impermissible if not reported by secondary sources. You seem really, really obsessed by this one minor detail about whether appearing in one bisexual film means he's a bisexual performer. I submit it isn't that important to most people.

You're free to say what you want about Wikipedia on your own site or here, of course, but looking at your approach to the matter it's pretty clear to me why you were unsuccessful.
posted by dhartung at 2:38 PM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Coulter matters because she gets people whipped into a frenzy. I've seen it. There are people who just reflexively agree with her, like the ditto-heads of yore. Now, she has every right to express her opinions, but I do believe that she should be held accountable for them, and not dismissed as some harmless goofball. The difference between her and the homeless nut ranting on the corner is that people actually listen to her.
posted by desjardins at 2:46 PM on May 5, 2007

I do believe that she should be held accountable for them, and not dismissed as some harmless goofball.

Exactly.
posted by bardic at 2:53 PM on May 5, 2007

I do believe that she should be held accountable for them, and not dismissed as some harmless goofball.

I agree. and you know how I hold people accountable for holding idiotic opinions. I disregard them. If we spent all our time doing noting but holding blowhards accountable, we'd never do anything else. I'd rather point energy somewhere constuctive instead of wrestling in the mud with a pig, since you only get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
posted by jonmc at 3:12 PM on May 5, 2007

Mitt Romney is on record saying he's a huge fan of hers. This man might be the next Republican nominee, if national pundits are to be believed.

And if he is he won't win. One, because the populace in general is getting fed up with the current crop of Republicans and two, because he's a Mormon named 'Mitt,' which weirds out just about everybody.
posted by jonmc at 3:14 PM on May 5, 2007

Also, I would suggest you stop thinking of it as a "thing" -- e.g. "Wikipedia has decided" -- and instead realize that other editors are people (cf. harassment policy) and have different points of view

Wikipedia has allowed Sanchez to write his own article, and once he had done so they locked it into place. Contrary viewpoints have been removed from their so-called "discussion." Yes, their editors are people. They are people who are Nixonian twits.

that potentially libelous statements such as some of your claims -- as well researched as you may think they are -- are impermissible if not reported by secondary sources

First off, if you believe something on my site is libelous then I want to know what it is. Be specific, either here or on the discussion board that is attached. Merely asserting that my "claims" are "potentially libelous" doesn't make it so. Secondly, Wikipedia's Sanchez article has cherry-picked the evidence, and its Nixonian twits (er, "people") have summarily blocked evidence against him, including his own statements on radio broadcasts.

You seem really, really obsessed by this one minor detail about whether appearing in one bisexual film means he's a bisexual performer. I submit it isn't that important to most people.

I am no more "obsessed" with that detail than with any other detail. I have carefully researched. Sanchez appears in 38 videos. One is titled "Bi Conflict," and he appears to have used that as the basis of his claim to have been in bisexual videos. In fact, that movie was aimed at the gay market and Sanchez engages in gay sex in that movie. It's merely one of his many lies. No more, no less.

You're free to say what you want about Wikipedia on your own site or here, of course, but looking at your approach to the matter it's pretty clear to me why you were unsuccessful.

I was unsuccessful because Wikipedia is bent on polishing Sanchez's knob. They allowed him to write his own biography, and they have tied up the most reliable researcher, Will Johnson, for a couple weeks over the wording of a single paragraph, all while their article filled with lies and promotional fluff stays out there, locked from editing.

I should say that, even after I moved on from journalism I had a different job that involved a lot of writing and working with editors. We got along great. I like editors. They're usually right. And when they're not, I've always been able to work it out to our mutual satisfaction. Wikipedia's "editors" on the Sanchez article are in a class by themselves. They are Nixonian twits who have blessed a pack of lies. Their article is a joke.

One other thing. I am not arguing for Wikipedia to adopt the tone of my site. They have an editorial voice of their own, and I respect it. I also respect their need for control. What I don't respect is that they've frozen a bunch of lies into place. In doing so, they have made an utter mockery of their "principles" of neutrality and verifiability. Wikipedia should be ashamed of that hack job. If that's the best they can do, then they should delete the whole thing.
posted by Charles Wilson at 3:16 PM on May 5, 2007

If we spent all our time doing noting but holding blowhards accountable, we'd never do anything else. I'd rather point energy somewhere constuctive instead of wrestling in the mud with a pig, since you only get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Fine. Then go do it. There are all kinds of ways to skin the cat. You want to kill her with kindness, or indifference? Have at it. But others will do what they'll do.
posted by Charles Wilson at 3:18 PM on May 5, 2007

All kidding aside: right-wing blowhards with an audience have come and gone for years: Father Coughlin, Morton Downey (at least he was entertaining), Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, and now Ann Coulter. Eventually the either get caught in some kind of scandal or the public simply gets tired of them or they get so desperate they manage to offend even their audience. This is where perspective comes in. and yes, making sure that the public is aware of their big gaffes is part of that. That dosen't mean that every time idiocy comes out of an idiot mouth I want to spend pondering it in minute detail.
posted by jonmc at 3:22 PM on May 5, 2007

IMO, Charles Wilson hasn't saved the world, but he's at least taken the time to shine some light on at least one odious corner of the Republican machine ca. 2007.

The older I get, the more I realize that there isn't any one silver bullet. It's a matter of a million things. You do what you can, when you can and where you can. If you're lucky, you make a difference. If not, then at least you tried.
posted by Charles Wilson at 3:23 PM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

All kidding aside: right-wing blowhards with an audience have come and gone for years: Father Coughlin, Morton Downey (at least he was entertaining), Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, and now Ann Coulter. Eventually the either get caught in some kind of scandal or the public simply gets tired of them or they get so desperate they manage to offend even their audience. This is where perspective comes in. and yes, making sure that the public is aware of their big gaffes is part of that. That dosen't mean that every time idiocy comes out of an idiot mouth I want to spend pondering it in minute detail.

No one is telling you that you have to. You seem to be telling other people not to pay attention. Here's my answer to you: Mind your own business. I will pay attention to whatever the hell I want to pay attention to. I'll do it when I want to do it, and I will say exactly what I feel like saying about it. If you don't like it: Too bad.
posted by Charles Wilson at 3:25 PM on May 5, 2007 [6 favorites has favorites]

I'm not telling you what to do or how to feel, I'm just suggesting a strategy that I think might be more effective if the ultimate goal is to render the Coulters of the world useless. You have a different idea. Fine. But I'm not sure why what I'm saying bugs you so much. Compared to some of the other comments here, I think I've been fairly civil.
posted by jonmc at 3:30 PM on May 5, 2007

I'm not being uncivil, nor are you. You're being direct, and so am I.

I think where you get my goat a little bit is by your implicit message that there's something wrong with being pissed off at the woman. I'm sorry, when a nationally syndicated political commentator pukes out what she pukes out, people are going to respond to it. If you don't want to respond to her, then don't. but if you sit there and try to make people feel bad for responding then you're going to get some push-back on that.
posted by Charles Wilson at 3:35 PM on May 5, 2007

I think where you get my goat a little bit is by your implicit message that there's something wrong with being pissed off at the woman.

Wrong, no. Unwise, maybe.* And I'm not trying to make anybody feel bad about her. But to my eye, she's simply an attention whore and giving her the attention she craves encourages her.

There's an old joke about two flies who lived benath the rim of a toilet in an outhouse. One looked at the other and said 'people sure are a lot of assholes.' Spend too much time listening to Coulter and her ilk and you start to believe the world is like that and (since it's a long way from true) that can be unhelthy. just my opinion.
posted by jonmc at 3:41 PM on May 5, 2007

There's an old joke about two flies who lived benath the rim of a toilet in an outhouse. ...

Sigh. You could have used the Nietzsche quote about gazing into the abyss instead, you know?

To each their own, I keep telling myself.
posted by voltairemodern at 3:59 PM on May 5, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

The Marine Corps is many things, one of which is an employer. It has every right to look at someone's employment record and make a judgment about a recruit.

Charles, could it be that you support "don't ask, don't tell"? I'm just trying to get clear on your position.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:02 PM on May 5, 2007

You could have used the Nietzsche quote about gazing into the abyss instead

nah, i like the two flies in the toilet better

another applicable saying - "never get in a pissing contest with a skunk" ... it's not a question of what the coulters and the sanchezes of the world deserve ... it's a question of what WE deserve

i don't feel like i deserve a wrestle with the pigs (or a pissing contest with the skunks) so i won't

others may like getting muddy and stinky
posted by pyramid termite at 4:15 PM on May 5, 2007

They are people who are Nixonian twits.

I see. We're done talking.
posted by dhartung at 4:18 PM on May 5, 2007

Charles, could it be that you support "don't ask, don't tell"? I'm just trying to get clear on your position.

No, I don't support the policy. It is very unfair. But I think the Marine Corps has every right to reject a porn actor or a prostitute, regardless of sexual orientation.
posted by Charles Wilson at 4:24 PM on May 5, 2007

I see. We're done talking.

That's up to you, of course, but I'm through with Wikipedia. They've made it clear that they do not desire comprehensive input on the article about Sanchez. Instead, they'll keep Will Johnson and whoever else wades into their swamp occupied for another couple of weeks on one paragraph of their promo piece on Sanchez. Who, by the way, has an item on his website promoting Wikipedia.

At least he's grateful. After all, when Sanchez was whoring he had the good sense to collect $250 an hour. Wikipedia gives it away for free. They really ought to charge for what they've given to Matt Sanchez.
posted by Charles Wilson at 4:30 PM on May 5, 2007

I think the Marine Corps has every right to reject a porn actor or a prostitute, regardless of sexual orientation.

Okay, good. Thank you for the clarity. What is it about pornography and prostitution that makes former porn performers and prostitutes candidates for employment discrimination? Assuming we're agreed that the Marine Corps shouldn't discriminate against other professions, why should those jobs come up for more comment than, say, plumbing?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:33 PM on May 5, 2007

On a happier note, did anyone notice that Sanchez read a passage at the recent "Bible Marathon" in Washington, D.C.? It's a required stop along the way for never-gay ex-manwhores. Jeff Gannon was a reader in 2004.
posted by Charles Wilson at 4:34 PM on May 5, 2007

I can't think of many professions where being a former pornstar, gay or straight, wouldn't get you fired. Or at least seriously hamper your potential to climb the ladder.
posted by bardic at 4:34 PM on May 5, 2007

The Clergy.
posted by jonmc at 4:37 PM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

That's up to you, of course, but I'm through with Wikipedia.

i wonder how they'll ever survive such a stinging rebuke
posted by pyramid termite at 4:40 PM on May 5, 2007

What is it about pornography and prostitution that makes former porn performers and prostitutes candidates for employment discrimination? Assuming we're agreed that the Marine Corps shouldn't discriminate against other professions, why should those jobs come up for more comment than, say, plumbing?

I think an employer of any kind ought to be able to evaluate a job candidate's prior jobs as part of the decision-making process. In my view, prostitutes and porn actors (often one in the same) are unstable people. Especially prostitutes, whose jobs depend to a significant degree on deception. Porn actors are exhibitionists, and I'd have my doubts as to whether someone of that nature would be able to work within a team where they couldn't count on being the center of attention.

But, you know what? If the prostitutes and porn actors want to agitate for fair 'n equal treatment, let 'em make their case. What I don't think is that those occupations have any special connection to sexual orientation. To me, Sanchez being gay is a non-issue, but his being a hooker and a porn actor, and lying about it, is an issue.

So is his continuing to lie about his homosexuality. The latter isn't an employment issue for me, though. DADT forces otherwise honest people into daily "little lies." I disrespect Sanchez for his recent lies about his homosexuality, just as I disrespect him for his other lies.
posted by Charles Wilson at 4:42 PM on May 5, 2007

i wonder how they'll ever survive such a stinging rebuke

They'll do just fine without me. That said, enough hack jobs like the one on Sanchez, and eventually they'll feel pressure. You see, pyramid termite, not everyone affects a blase face to the world. Yeah, yeah. Nothing matters. It's so tired. Get over it. Etc.
posted by Charles Wilson at 4:44 PM on May 5, 2007

I can't think of many professions where being a former pornstar, gay or straight, wouldn't get you fired.

Would it surprise you to learn that Susie Bright has taught a number of university courses? Just to put my own cards on the table, I'm a sex-positive feminist who'd prefer that we not support the stigmatization of sex workers, especially by homophobic and misogynistic institutions like the military.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:48 PM on May 5, 2007

To me, Sanchez being gay is a non-issue, but his being a hooker and a porn actor, and lying about it, is an issue.

Yet if he had revealed that he was a prostitute or porn actor, he'd also have had to reveal the nature of his customer base, thereby disclosing his sexuality. I think it's a catch-22; you can't differentiate that omission from the general 'white lie' of his sexuality.

Try to imagine how you would react if your 'hero' had had a similar past, and was being drummed out of the Corps for similar reasons. Wouldn't you resent the treatment? Should we administer a 'heroism test' before deciding whether someone deserves fair treatment or respect for their sexual identity/history?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:53 PM on May 5, 2007

Yet if he had revealed that he was a prostitute or porn actor, he'd also have had to reveal the nature of his customer base, thereby disclosing his sexuality. I think it's a catch-22; you can't differentiate that omission from the general 'white lie' of his sexuality.

Oh yes I can. He have had to disclose that he's gay, but that's secondary. The USMC would have been on solid ground with me in rejecting him on grounds for the acting jobs. The Marine Corps wouldn't take a gigolo with a female clientele, nor would they take a female prostitute or porn actress.

Try to imagine how you would react if your 'hero' had had a similar past, and was being drummed out of the Corps for similar reasons.

Two responses. First, I really wish you wouldn't stick 'hero' in quotes. The connotation is to denigrate the whole thing. I'd like it if I could justify my use of that word, which I generally think is cheesy and overworked these days. But heroes do exist, and my friend is one of them.

As for him potentially having been a porn star or whore, it's hypothetical to begin with. I think the number of porn stars and whores in the services is miniscule; if someone else wants to form the whores-in-the-military lobby, let them. But I'm not going to do it. Beyond that, I'd expect that the typical exhibitionist would do as Sanchez did: Join the reserves to keep from being actually sent to battle. As soon as we have a porn star war hero or two, I'll rethink that, okay?

Should we administer a 'heroism test' before deciding whether someone deserves fair treatment or respect for their sexual identity/history?

Given that you've asked a question that's quite literally impossible, I'll take it as a rhetorical question and give you a rhetorical answer: No.
posted by Charles Wilson at 5:08 PM on May 5, 2007

My post was incomplete. I'd like it if I could justify my labeling my friend a hero by telling you what he did. He has asked that I not do it. His story is specific enough that he thinks people would find out who he is. I think he ought to let people know, but that's his call and not mine. He is not a public figure, and there isn't a shred of dishonor or hypocrisy about the dude. So you'll have to take it on faith. Or not, as the case may be with you. But I'm telling you without a shred of doubt: This guy could be cast in bronze as the fifth guy on the Iwo Jima monument.
posted by Charles Wilson at 5:13 PM on May 5, 2007

Well, I certainly agree that there are heroes, and that Sanchez does not deserve the moniker. I think you're feeding his victim mentality, though, and to no purpose but resentment.

You're wrong about former sex workers. A friend of mine used to do "massage" and "modeling," but now is happily partnered and quite stable. People make mistakes, and they change. Generally in that order.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:22 PM on May 5, 2007

Well, I certainly agree that there are heroes, and that Sanchez does not deserve the moniker. I think you're feeding his victim mentality, though, and to no purpose but resentment.

I can understand that point of view. I had mixed feelings about the project. At some level I feel sorry for the fool. Problem is that over the past 10 or 15 years we've had a parade of these sorts of people from the right wing. You look at 'em and laugh, and say to yourself, "My God, who could take this guy seriously?" And then they become president.

I'm not saying Sanchez will become president, but you just never know where a whack job like that might wind up these days. I'm a former journalist with an undergrad history degree. When push comes to shove, I think things ought to be on the record. I'm going to keep that website out there for many years to come. It'll be like a library book that gets checked out once every 10 years. But that one time it gets checked out just might matter.


You're wrong about former sex workers. A friend of mine used to do "massage" and "modeling," but now is happily partnered and quite stable. People make mistakes, and they change. Generally in that order.

You know what? I agree with you about that. If Sanchez had turned a couple tricks to get himself through college, or made a couple movies when he was young, dumb and fulla cum, I'd be inclined to laugh it off. But he's a professional. We're talking somewhere between 10 and 20 porn flicks, and a whore for at least five years that we know about and probably a lot longer than that.

A little common sense is in order here. I'm afraid Matt Sanchez isn't just some wayward child.
posted by Charles Wilson at 5:30 PM on May 5, 2007

johnmc wrote: ...two, because he's a Mormon named 'Mitt,' which weirds out just about everybody.
You know, I thought that, and the minor detail that he'd been a Utah resident up to the moment he decided he wanted to be Governor of Massachusetts, would keep him from that office. I was wrong; liberal Mass voted him in. I'm not making any bets about his ability to be the Republican nominee for President.

WRT Ann Coulter, I agreed with johnmc in this sense: she gets enough attention in the rest of the world. I don't ignore her, but I do not think there's anything fresh to say about her here, nor do I think saying any of those stale things here on MetaFilter are going to change anybody's opinions, here or elsewhere. I don't really want her ugliness messing up the MeTa landscape.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:47 PM on May 5, 2007

Would it surprise you to learn that Susie Bright has taught a number of university courses?

No. She's an exception that proves the rule.
posted by bardic at 6:17 PM on May 5, 2007

At some level I feel sorry for the fool. Problem is that over the past 10 or 15 years we've had a parade of these sorts of people from the right wing. You look at 'em and laugh, and say to yourself, "My God, who could take this guy seriously?" And then they become president.
posted by Charles Wilson

Back in the 90's I would have thought that this was over-blown hyperbole. Today, not so much.

Which is another reason why the Ann Coulters of the nation should be held to ridicule as often as possible. The thought of an Ann/Condi ticket is reason enough not to just ignore assholes like this.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:59 PM on May 5, 2007

Oh, and MetaTalk, by the way.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:00 PM on May 5, 2007

I can't think of many professions where being a former pornstar, gay or straight, wouldn't get you fired.

I don't think many employers near me would care as long as you are doing your job well, and you aren't a spokesperson for a religious group, or some other sensitive job. How you treat your orifices in your spare time is your own business.
posted by caddis at 8:23 PM on May 5, 2007

metafilter: How you treat your orifices in your spare time is your own business.
posted by pyramid termite at 8:27 PM on May 5, 2007

I'd just like to thank La Cieca for teaching me about gayface.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:31 PM on May 5, 2007

How you treat your orifices in your spare time is your own business.

I agree completely! But if you put it on videotape, nowhere is it written that only your friends are allowed to notice.
posted by Charles Wilson at 9:28 PM on May 5, 2007

Back in the 90's I would have thought that this was over-blown hyperbole. Today, not so much.

Same here.
posted by Charles Wilson at 9:43 PM on May 5, 2007

hat is it about pornography and prostitution that makes former porn performers and prostitutes candidates for employment discrimination? Assuming we're agreed that the Marine Corps shouldn't discriminate against other professions, why should those jobs come up for more comment than, say, plumbing?

Prostitution is still illegal in 99% of the US.

Being a plumber is legal in 100% of the US.

Therefore the Marines have every legal and ethical right discharge Sanchez without benefits as Sanchez is an admitted criminal.
posted by tkchrist at 12:41 AM on May 6, 2007

How you treat your orifices in your spare time is your own business.

I agree. But naming yourself Rod Majors and doing films called "Touched by an Anal"? Qualitatively different.

Wouldn't bother me personally. I'd think it was pretty damn funny. 99% of offices and/or professions? Yeah, it'd be a problem. K-12 education being the first thing that jumps to mind.
posted by bardic at 12:43 AM on May 6, 2007

tkchrist- Since sodomy is still a violation of the UCMJ, I think it's insufficient to point to legality. Legally, the military can be rid of any man who plays with his wife doggy-style, and every single gay man who doesn't remain perfectly celibate during his tour. Is that just? If not, what makes porn/prostitution more actionable? Why defend gays in the military but not sex workers?
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:38 AM on May 6, 2007

Great thread.
posted by 31d1 at 9:51 AM on May 6, 2007

I think someone who was known to have performed in Touched By An Anal and Tijuana Toilet Tramps would at some point face a flesh ceiling when it came to promotions. Best way around it would be to go into sales, as in automobiles. Or plumbing, given that he already has experience.
posted by Charles Wilson at 5:37 PM on May 6, 2007

Legally, the military can be rid of any man who plays with his wife doggy-style, and every single gay man who doesn't remain perfectly celibate during his tour. Is that just?

Hard to believe you still don't get it. A guy doing anal with his wife (or boyfriend, for that matter) probably isn't going to get caught. Appearing on the box cover for "Touched by an Anal"? Yeah, that's kind of asking for trouble. With the military for sure, and for almost any other profession I can think of. Except for maybe, well, porn.
posted by bardic at 5:39 PM on May 6, 2007

Another possibility is the Bible Marathon business. Apparently Jeff Gannon is the publicist for a recent pray-in that attracted 38 people in Washington, D.C. And Matt's website says that he participated in a Bible Marathon, which sounds like one of those dance marathons from the 1930s. Gannon was in the same Bible Marathon in 2004. From there, maybe they could do a Fallen Sinners Roadshow. $20 a ticket. The naked version? $50.
posted by Charles Wilson at 5:41 PM on May 6, 2007

Jinx.
posted by bardic at 5:42 PM on May 6, 2007

You know what the great part of getting older is? You've seen stuff like this before, albeit in different forms. The real fun is going to be the "Where are they now?" story in about 25 years. Jeff Gannon and Matt Sanchez. Anyone want to guess where they'll be in 25 years?
posted by Charles Wilson at 5:49 PM on May 6, 2007

i don't feel like i deserve a wrestle with the pigs (or a pissing contest with the skunks) so i won't

others may like getting muddy and stinky
posted by pyramid termite at 4:15 PM on May 5

And yet you can't ever stop fucking posting about how much you hate posting about certain topics.

Jeff Gannon and Matt Sanchez. Anyone want to guess where they'll be in 25 years?
posted by Charles Wilson at 5:49 PM on May 6

Dual wardens of the Ken Mehlman Memorial San Francisco Homolib Concentration Camp.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:14 PM on May 6, 2007

And yet you can't ever stop fucking posting about how much you hate posting about certain topics.

To be fair, it's kind of the only thing he's capable of.
posted by bardic at 6:25 PM on May 6, 2007

A guy doing anal with his wife (or boyfriend, for that matter) probably isn't going to get caught.

So, bardic: do you support 'don't ask, don't tell'? I mean, only an idiot would get caught, right? We might as well overturn Lawrence v. Texas. To hear you tell it, it wasn't really necessary.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:31 PM on May 6, 2007

You need to stop trying to change the subject. Fwiw, I don't think the military's policy is a fair one (arguably it was a step in the right direction in the context of the 90's, but now it should be changed). Appearing in mass-market porn (not amateur tapes for home consumption, not some tape someone made on a Friday night in college) is a decision that shouldn't be made lightly, IMO, not because you're more likely to go to hell, but because it could really hamper your ability to get a job in many cases.

Sanchez knows this, but he tried to play the "I'm being persecuted by the gay mafia card." It was a laughable attempt.

But please, continue to mindlessly spin your wheels that the busting of a hypocrite like Sanchez is somehow a loss for the gay community.
posted by bardic at 7:36 PM on May 6, 2007

And yet you can't ever stop fucking posting about how much you hate posting about certain topics.

another person trolling me in a thread after i've been quiet in it for many hours

how amusing
posted by pyramid termite at 8:15 PM on May 6, 2007

Some posters manage to register their discontent with one comment. PT requires seven.
posted by bardic at 8:20 PM on May 6, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

busting of a hypocrite like Sanchez

You know, we Democrats have been losing a lot of battles this past decade, and I guess it'd be nice to have a victory now and then. But you can keep this one: it's dirty, and I don't want it.

Let me know when we get bankruptcy protection and estate taxes back, or if we're likely to stop torturing brown people. Oh wait, am I changing the subject again? Why is it that I have such trouble keeping my mind on the vindictive matter at hand?
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:34 PM on May 6, 2007

anotherpanacea -- Jesus called. He'd like his cross back.

I realize this is a rather minor victory, all things considered. But it's also not a zero-sum game -- exposing a hypocrite like Sanchez doesn't take away from more important ones in the future.
posted by bardic at 11:43 PM on May 6, 2007

tkchrist- Since sodomy is still a violation of the UCMJ, I think it's insufficient to point to legality.

Huh? Wha? Quit moving the goal post.

You asked what ethical grounds USMC had for dismissing Sanchez - what differs a plumber from a Whore in the eyes of the USMC.

Being a whore he broke the law. Prostitution is illegal. Would you have the same difficulty grasping this if he was selling crack? I think not.

Broke the law. End of story. you may not think it a crime but it is 49 out of 50 US states.

What ever else the USMC came up with is gravy on the goose. You may not LIKE the gravy. But that does not invalidate or render capricious the USMC dismissal.

The fact is Sanchez is an admitted criminal. The USMC did not dig to find a crime. Nor did they invent a crime unique to Sanchez. He CAME to them a criminal. He (may have) committed criminal acts while under the uniform. Then admitted he was a criminal.

If any marine came to them admitting PUBLICLY a crime they would do the same. They are LEGALLY obligated to dismiss him.
posted by tkchrist at 12:25 AM on May 7, 2007

They are LEGALLY obligated to dismiss him.

No, they are not.
posted by Charles Wilson at 1:42 AM on May 7, 2007

No, they are not.

How you figure? If he admits it (and is not deployed) I believe they are. Did he break the law before he signed his enlistment papers? Or was he under uniform? If he broke the law and before he signed up when ask you if you have committed (or were convicted) any crimes and then later admits he broke the law that is grounds for dismissal.

It's hard to discern from the USCMJ, as it implies there is some discretion for court martial.
posted by tkchrist at 10:06 AM on May 7, 2007

Does the USMC have the power to dismiss him? Absolutely. Are they "legally obligated" to do so? Nope.
posted by Charles Wilson at 10:47 AM on May 7, 2007

p.s.: You are mixing punitive action (involving a courts-martial and potential confinement and/or financial penalty) with administrative action (no loss of pay or liberty, no courts-martial). In neither case is the military "legally obligated" to punish someone.

Of course, failure to take action in one case could be cited as a defense in a similar case, or at least it could in a civilian court. But I don't think that sort of argument usually cuts much ice. In any case, I think this is a theoretical issue. I think the Marine Corps will discharge Sanchez, if it hasn't already done so.

One of the frustrating things about the administrative route is that the result is non-disclosable per federal law. It goes on Sanchez's DD-214; whether it's disclosed to the public is up to him. However, the USMC internal report is disclosable under the Freedom of Information Act. It won't say what was actually done, but it'll give a strong indication of how the USMC intended to handle it.

If I get the report, I'll report about it on my website. If they deny my request, I'll note that as well. I should know one way or the other by the end of May.
posted by Charles Wilson at 10:59 AM on May 7, 2007

Update
posted by sneakin at 10:50 AM on May 11, 2007

I can't regard that Queerty story as valid. It's too easy to forge a profile on a hookup site. If the person making the claim would contact me, I might be able to verify it because I have some unpublished info about Sanchez that bears on his identity. Absent that, I think this has to be viewed with skepticism, no matter how true it might ring.
posted by Charles Wilson at 3:52 PM on May 11, 2007

Dear Queerty—
When attempting to inject "flava" into your snark, the term should be "horntacular" not "horntatically," which just makes you sound like an amateur.
posted by klangklangston at 6:23 PM on May 11, 2007