My old professor, Daniel Ellis, was talking about Life Blogging, and recording his conversations on a tape recorder. This guy, "Justin", just took it to a whole new level. http://justin.tv/ As of right now, he's been been on for 26 hours. Justin's life, streaming to you via EVDO-Rev. A on a laptop. Interesting. Too bad he's not doing cool stuff. Wandering around San Francisco gets old, fast.
It was easy for the conservative media to defend Matt Sanchez, when it was revealed by bloggers that he had an extensive gay porn past. All the Michelle Malkins, Anne Coulters, and Fox News of the world had to do was say, "That was in the past, he's moved on and we embrace him for his service". MSNBC made the mistake of jumping on this story.
How much of the past really matters though? I'm not talking about when Sanchez's most recent fling as a gay male escort was, I'm talking about how relevant his past is on current day commentary. If you ask Sanchez, he would tell you it means absolutely nothing, it was a dark day in his past and he is working hard to put it behind him. Fine.
If only it was that easy for everyone else in the national spotlight. Forgive and forget, wash your hands clean of past sins. To see the double standard, all we have to do is look at Fox News and the network's treatment of Barack Obama. They have looked into his past and claimed that he attended a Madrasah for four years when he was a young boy. This was found to be untrue in all respects. Along with the Madrasah claim, they have focused on his middle name being "Hussein", his smoking of cigarettes, etc. Barack says he is a practicing Christian, what more does Fox News and its right wing punditry need to know? It was in the past (although their smear job was unfounded and untrue), hence as with Matt Sanchez, it shouldn't matter, right?
Matt Sanchez, has been but surprisingly forthcoming about his past. He hasn't denied the gay porn, he hasn't denied the career as an escort, and it has been refreshing to be quite honest, even if it was because it was impossible for him to deny the claim; the facts are in front of him. What bothers me about Sanchez is his lack of integrity in my eyes.
A few days ago, Sanchez posted a blog entry about his being mentioned (focused on) in a story written by one of his heroes, Kevin McCullough, titled, "Why Christians Embrace Gay Porn Stars". Sanchez said that he was SO moved by the article he wanted to write McCullough a thank you letter, he instead went on his radio program a few days later. The inherent problem about McCullough's article and Sanchez is the content of the article itself.
The first is - he stopped having homosexual sex. The ability to "choose" one's actions particularly as it relates to which gender one has sex with is supposed to be unchangeable in the mind of liberals. The whole "made that way" argument tends to get decimated when someone like Sanchez simply decides that it is an empty, sad, and destructive life that brings him no joy.
McCullough's premise is that Matt Sanchez was a gay man, and has since turned away from that life, essentially, turning off the gay light switch. In that same paragraph, McCullough links to one of his own articles espousing how homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not biological. Sanchez, now, has become evidence that you can become un-gay, by hating yourself enough and turning towards God. Matt Sanchez has denied being gay at every opportunity possible. While he was participating in sodomy on film, while he was a male escort charging up to $350 for his services, while he was posting himself on gay interest sites, all the while, not gay. McCullough's premise, if we choose to believe Sanchez, is then completely false.
I have written Matt many times about this, he has chosen not to respond, he has instead chosen to screen his blog comments and not post mine. How could you thank McCullough when he has written an article about you, using non-factual information, using you to push an anti-gay agenda? It's easy, Sanchez has no interest in serving anyone but himself, and has been doing everything in his power to stay in the favor of the conservative movement.
update:
A commenter has asked if Matt has made the statement that he has ceased having gay sex, please see below. It is interesting though, Matt has committed this statement many times, I wonder why it isn't asked and if it wasn't assumed that since his gay porn past was 15 years ago, he has ceased having homosexual sex. This is compounded by the fact that people have found advertisements for his "services" in the New York Blade as recent as 2004. Columbia University tuition costs a lot of money, I know, my family and I paid for it, it would be interesting to know where Sanchez is getting his income from to pay for his tuition, as he receives no pay being an reserve Marine. If it was discovered that Sanchez was still engaging in homosexual activity, would Kevin McCullough, Malkin, etc. still embrace him? He has not explicitly denied it, but has danced around it, kind of denying it.
Matt says he put it all behind him - Kevin McCullough radio program.
Matt says he isn't gay and loathed himself - On Alan Colmes radio program.
update 2 (corrections):
In a previous update I said that it would be interesting to know what Matt Sanchez's occupation is. Columbia costs a lot and Matt had admitted to prostitution, albeit he claims when he answered Alan Colmes, he says he was referring to porn, which he considers prostitution. According to recent interviews, he has worked in Hollywood pitching films, starting up a magazine, working on Angel for the WB, and most recently he has been working at NYC marketing firm, MDA (I couldn't find it on google, anyone know what they do?) and was recently made partner. Mystery solved
Reposted from the MilitaryTimes forum:
The notion that one's sexual orientation compromises military readiness if one is homosexual versus heterosexual is without logical foundation.
One's sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual can compromise operational readiness if that conduct occurs. For example, when a heterosexual member of the armed services engages in an affair with the spouse of an active duty member in their unit or command, or a male engages in sexual intercourse with an underage female on and off base, or a senior enlisted active duty member of the armed forces acquieses to the promiscuity of his daughter with other military men on base, operational readiness can be impacted. It is not a leap of logic to find that this otherwise private conduct is either unlawful or has an immediate impact on command readiness given the web of sexual conduct and intrigue within the command. As reprehensible as this conduct is, it would be unlikely to directly undermine command readiness unless it's illegality would subject the member to legal or administrative sanction. In all of these instances, the command was aware of the conduct and did not act against the member, all of whom were former students of mine. The common element was that the sexual conduct involved a male and female, not male and male or female and female.
By contrast, another highly decorated male in the armed services who was viewed as a very macho "man's man" was drummed out of his highly sensitive job in a local military team. His job was among the most dangerous and clandestine in the US military for which hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to train him. Several of his missions saved the lives of fellow military personnel. Still, he was seen walking in a gay area of San Diego with another military-looking man. Hushed rumors matured into hate messages and death threats. He accepted an honorable discharge after less than 10 years in the military. He had intended to make it his career. Members of his team felt betrayed by him since they believed that he did not share their interest in women. Perversely, they thought if he was not interested in women he must interested in them! The man with whom he was walking was another member of the armed services in a different branch. They were dating at the time. That he did not "tell" nor did his command "ask" was irrelevant. This command did not protect him.
In another instance, a married couple who were both my students, also occupied sensitive posts which called for both to have TOP SECRET security clearances. They were bisexual and some how their command found out about their off-base activities. In an effort to force one of them to leave the service (why one and not both was never clear), their command insisted that one of them would have to leave the sevice to be the responsible adult guardian of their daughter. They had no family who could assume that role. It seemed logical, but they command had always known of their family situation and it had never been an issue until their bisexuality became known. Moreover, the $60,000 re-enlisted bonus each had received would have to be surrendered by the spouse leaving the military. They were understandably outraged. The counsel I gave them in a letter they could share with their command sent their superiors into a panic. As difficult as the matter of guardianship of their daughter might be in the future if sent overseas, the alternative for the military was one that could have lead to reprimands of those up the chain of command, or worse.
The matter of their bisexuality and daughter were dropped. They are still active duty members of the armed forces today serving the nation in their TOP SECRET posts.
I mention these instances to illustrate the conflicting attitudes toward service members' sexuality and just how arbitrary and capricious treatment of individual members can be.
Wrongful hetesexual conduct can be excused and overlooked. Bisexuality can be overlooked if in the nation's interest. Openly gay men and women serve in active duty in all branches of the military without difficulty so long as they are ultra-discrete and closeted in their private lives (not exactly the same standard for heterosexual members).
It is unfortunate enough the irrational prejudices toward gay and lesbian members of the military continues, but this is compounded by the irrational attacks on Matthew Sanchez's political beliefs. It is akin to the illogical notion that all gays must be Democrats . . or it is illogical for a black American to be a Republican.
Those gay advocates who condem Sanchez's political conservatism demonstrate intolerance toward gay members of the service (or former members) who espouse political ideas with which they do not agree. This is much like self-annointed "conservatives" condemming those who criticized the decision to go to war in Iraq. Both act from a rigid ideological base from which they shelter themselves from truths that they do not want to see. One can be gay and conservative. One can also be a loyal American and not want to go to war in Iraq.
It would be better to have a lively poltical discussion with Matthew than to engage in the distraction of how many gay movies he appeared in, or what he did sexually while in the military. They may be titilating in a "National Inquirer" and "Star" centered discussion with lots of heat and overblown rhetoric, but hopefully most of the readers of the Navy Times aspire to more.
Richard Dittbenner, J. D.
San Diego, California
rdittbenner@sprynet.com
From the perspective of the Motion Picture Association of America, their business model is broken. Is it their fault? Have studios been producing increasing amounts of celluloid trash that does not interest the public? Has the advertising model by which major studios rely on ceased to be able to force feed consumers their concept of good cinema? The MPAA will tell you that the loss in revenue relies solely on piracy; internet piracy and bootlegs selling on the streets and subway stations.
"The worldwide motion picture industry, including foreign and domestic producers, distributors, theaters, video stores and pay-per-view operators lost $18.2 billion in 2005 as a result of piracy."
Like most industries, the film industry suffers its ups and downs. If you look at the
In any case, the movie industry attributes revenue fluctuation to piracy. There is no doubt that piracy causes a loss of revenue for the MPAA member studios; the illegal market for films is high and widespread. It would be interesting to see how much of an effect that the illegal industry has on strengthening the legal market on account of free marketing and promotion. There is however no way to change the mind of the MPAA. Piracy is a crime and it must be dealt with. I am proposing a way for the MPAA to deal with it.
Movie studios keep their current strategy of releasing films to theaters across the nation. They charge high prices for theater chains to buy films and they take a percentage of ticket sales.
To combat piracy, I propose that the MPAA member studios make available their new films for free online after the film has been in the theater for a set number of weeks and has been available for sale on DVD for a week or two. This assures that retailers like Best Buy and Amazon.com will still retain a significant amount of income from the sale of new DVDs. The online release date can be dynamically adjusted for films, like Titanic, which continued to generate massive box office numbers MONTHS after the premier. Like ABC and NBC have pioneered, movies can be hosted on individual studios' websites, available for streaming over the internet. Advertisements can be run on the page adjacent to the film. Like television, ad revenue can be generated at a high rate due to the significant traffic to the site that online availability would provide. The mentality is that film is best watched in a movie theater and not the home computer. People will pay for the theater experience, but the honest truth is that not all movies released are very good, and there are a significant amount of people that are willing to sacrifice the theater experience for a cheaper price. Blockbuster has proven this.
Providing new films online for free in my opinion would deter a significant amount of people from illegally downloading a movie. The recent lawsuits from the RIAA have been burned into the public consciousness; the MPAA is making similar moves. I would bet that people would wait for the availability of a MPAA sponsored free version, rather than risk a lawsuit while downloading an illegal free version via p2p.
Studios may retain new movies online for a period that may be arbitrarily set, say a month after first posted online. Movies will not be retained online any longer than the fixed amount of time. New movies and old movies will both still be available through Blockbuster, Netflix, Best Buy, Amazon.com, etc.
The current practice of filing lawsuits against the customer is detrimental to the overall health of the industry, and it is destined to fail. We saw it once already with BetaMax. The solution is providing a distribution avenue that delivers what piracy does, but does it within the confines of the law; if paired with an ad delivery system, the free distribution method becomes a new revenue generator. With a legal alternative, customers will be dissuaded from the illegal method of instant gratification and turn towards a legal method that requires some patience.
If the MPAA hopes to increase profits, assuming that revenue loss is directly due to piracy, they need to adapt to the networked digital world where anything can be attained for free. This is the way, lawsuits and scare tactics are not.
