Several bloggers were posting pictures of me and Coulter together and noting, gleefully, that the guy with his arm around the waist of the woman who called Edwards a faggot had, once upon a time, acted in adult films.
Some of the sites were comparing me to Rich Merritt, a Marine Corps captain who appeared in gay films. Others were comparing me to Jeff Gannon and claiming that I too had advertised my services as a male escort. I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors.
Subtle. I guess "Lance Cockheavy" might have been a little over the top. But hey, awful large of him "not to deny" that he, like cock-headed plagiarist James Guckert, had advertised his "services". I suppose that an "escort" can command a better price, and hence presumably a better class of riff-raff for clientele than your ten-bucks-a-throw streetwalker, but let's not pretend that they're exactly the same thing -- we're just haggling over the price.
We all have a tendency to want to hate the enemy. I suppose that's why Coulter gets applause when she uses terms like "faggot" or "ragheads" (was that the last Coulter scandal, or was it her comments about 9/11 widows?). I also suppose that's why I got so much abuse in my in box when gay and liberal bloggers posted ancient pictures of me.
Yes, one reasonably assumes that when nobodies take pictures with people who are famous precisely for being polarizing and contentious, that said nobody tacitly endorses some of the bizarrely spiteful things that person says for a living. Don't pull this babe-in-the-woods "was that the last Coulter scandal? I forget" snide bullshit, asshole. You know exactly who she is, you know exactly what she says on a regular basis, you know that she has openly and repeatedly advocated for violent retribution and oppression to "enemies" without and within. She essentially wants everyone who disagrees with the Cheney administration either dead, imprisoned, or disenfranchised, and she's said as much. Save us the feigned surprise, "Pierre".
And while we're back on Coulter (however briefly, thankfully) I notice that over the past week, some half-dozen papers have dropped her syndicated column. I am of two minds on this, frankly. I think it's pathetic that, after years of spewing the most ridiculous nonsense -- not simply "hateful", but just dumb, and utterly useless in any serious discussion -- it took a half-assed "faggot" joke, a truly lame jape at perceived librul correctness that tethered John Edwards to its conjoined trope of Democrat emasculation, to get the powers that be to sit up and actually do something.
They didn't get rid of her because she "joked" about poisoning John Paul Stevens, or shooting Bill Clinton. Nor did they do shit about her fantasizing about Timothy McVeigh blowing up the New York Times building. Or hell, even actually read her contemptible scribblings enough to realize that she's a thoroughly dishonest thinker and a hack writer. Used to be that political writers were expected to know something useful, and do more than clumsily stitch a famous name to a popular teevee show.
The most charitable speculation I can offer is that perhaps this latest CPAC episode highlighted very concisely how irrelevant both Coulter and the movementarians she represents have finally, blessedly become, and by their own doing at that. But still, this should have happened a long time ago, not because she's "offensive", but because she adds no value to anything. She has never expressed even an interest in providing insight or perspective; indeed, she has deliberately avoided such things.
Anyway, back to the long intemellectual awakening of Peter Hunter, or whatever the fuck his name is.
I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn't like porn's liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.
Being in the adult entertainment industry was sort of like being in a cult, and like all followers of a cult, I have a difficult time figuring out when I stopped believing in the party line. 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.
So he basically left one cult for another, and even seems to think he was deprogrammed, rather than simply reprogrammed. It's the same sort of self-serving evangelizing you get from ex-smokers, who are invariably the most rabid anti-smoking activists. Youstabee libruls are generally the same type of mindset, using their personal and emotional issues to inform their dogmatic leanings, and then confusing those with empirical principles.
(For the record, I have never smoked, and I despise the purveyors of the product, but I think that individuals still have the right to their addictions, to a reasonable extent. Thus I find most of the efforts, especially here in California, to fund this or that pet cause with a sin tax to be bullshit. If it's a worthy cause, we can all chip in for it. Save your sermons for church.)
Now, this part just made me crack up [emphasis mine]:
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. I'm also not going to claim I'm sorry for leaving a long-ago summer job off my curriculum vitae.
When I was in high school and the one year of college I attended at the time, I had summer jobs. One summer, I worked for a landscaping company. Another year, I worked swimming pool construction. Another summer I was a convenience store clerk. Those are what most people would recognize as "summer jobs".
Renting yourself out as a choad dumpster for a video stable of tweaker boiz, not so much.
I learned a lot at CPAC. I saw Jeff Gannon. He seemed to be doing fine, despite the minor media scandal he endured. (When was that scandal anyway? It's hard to keep track, because so many come and go so rapidly.)
And you know, at the end of the day, this is what fucking gets me about preening little smartasses like this guy. I really don't care whether or not he's gay, or that he did gay porn and prostitution for some time (how long, despite Sanchez' dismissal of it as a "long-ago summer job", seems to be in some dispute). But even as he gripes about how mean liberals have been to him since the disclosure of his past, he gladly associates -- seeks out, even -- groups of people who are quite closely associated with the sort of folks that would literally like to see Sanchez and everyone like him either dead or "cured". That's hate, chump; we're just giving you a hard time about your foolish hypocrisies and past indiscretions.
But when he's not talking about himself in this piece, his few truly "political" observations (or at least observations about people who are political in nature) are so superficial as to be roughly 90% air. When Sanchez refers to Jeff Gannon™'s "minor scandal" so carelessly, he seems enamored with the notion that he himself will, like Gannon™ be both largely forgotten by most of the public and promptly subsumed into the wingnut welfare system. He has completely, cheerfully forgotten the nature of that most assuredly not-minor scandal, which illustrated a very clear M.O. on this administration's attempts to subvert an already complaisant press.
Guckert had been receiving daily press passes to the White House for over two years, by the time he had been discovered. He had visited the White House many times, besides press briefings, and no one seems to be able to figure out why. His journamalism credentials took a weekend to earn, the "media" source employing him was bankrolled by the chair of the Texas GOP. And the whole reason he was uncovered in the first place was, shortly after he had been noticed lobbing increasingly ridiculous softballs at press conferences, he was found to be a flat-out plagiarist, which in actual journalist circles is a huge fucking scandal.
It would be very easy to write off Sanchez as just another closet-case Republican geting hoist on his own sweaty petard. But his actions and words bespeak a deeply compartmentalized person, one who is able to rationalize seemingly diametrically-opposed principles into the appearance of cohesion. I don't buy it. At the very least, if he were actually interested in boosting the military and such, instead of vainly trying to show "the left" what a maverick he thinks he is, he might be put to better use recruiting all those tough-guy keg-stand frat-boys to the cause. I mean, they're war supporters (at least for other people), pal; if you can't convince them to join up, what the hell makes you think anyone else is going to listen to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment