Now I don't care that Spitzerwas sleeping with hookers, although to do so on Valentine's Day seems the height of bad taste when you are married and have three daughters waiting at home with heart-shaped cards and all that. What I do care about is how cavalierly he was shuffling money around and how his outsized ego seemed to warp his capacity for critical thinking. Did he really think that noone was watching? The man made a lot of enemies and all of them were lined up waiting for him to fuck up in some way. The hubris! I never really liked him personally; he was a bully and abused his office as attorney general, even though the net result of his prosecutions was generally positive for the people of New York. But he is also a lawyer, and the State Bar takes a dim view of lawyers who commit felonies. In fact, upon conviction they are instantly disbarred. Spitzer is familiar with what charges one can bring down on the heads of high priced call girl agencies through his moralistic crusade against them while he was attorney general, so he must have been aware that he was in violation of the Mann Act when he was arranging for Kristin to hop on the 5:39 Amtrak to DC. (The same train, incidentally, that I used to take home when I was commuting from to Philadelphia a few years ago). He also must have known that "stacking" your financial transactions to avoid raising the attention of the IRS is also a felony. This incredible lapse of judgment makes me question whether he is suffering from some sort of mental illness. The Republicans will have some fun with this one, but they probably shouldn't get out the knives until they find out who clients 1 through 8 were. What a flameout. See ya Spitzer.
19 comments:
It is strange that you place a higher value on critical thinking and integrity in financial matters over the sale of sex and degradation of women as a commodity.
So what's wrong with selling sex? I completely disagree with your categorization of prostitution, especially at that level. Carol Pateman in The Sexual Contract goes to some length to show that the prostitute is not an exploited wage laborer but rather an independent contractor who has it within her means to start or stop a transaction. (I'm not talking about addicted street walkers here; different story.) Women who operate as escorts at as high a level as the one at issue here are the ones doing the exploiting for financial gain. I would think that to a true feminist, the question about whether to participate in sex trade activities (prostitution, pornography, stripping, etc) are individual choices made by free-thinking adults, and should therefore be legal. Woman who choose to engage in this activity are in full control of their sexuality and of their bodies, and have the right to do with them what they please. That said, high-priced call girls making $5,000 per night have little in common with a poor prostitute who has been subjected to violence on the part of her pimp and her customers. I am willing to admit there are grey areas while you, hiding behind an anonymous post, have seemingly already made up your mind.
buddee wang's sister is super shiny nuber 1 prostitute. She make 3 times money buddee wang make as a speech therapist and she no pay taxes. This make you buddee wang jearous.
You buddee wang
Wow, you've managed in one sentence to make fun of Asians, prostitutes, speech therapists and women. I am impressed.
Wang,
What are the stats on your sister?
Why anonymous make hate against prostitute in first posting and ask about sister in second posting? Buddee Wang think anonymous noodle is over cooked. Buddee Wang have new brog. Prease come for visit.
You Buddee Wang
http://buddeewang.blogspot.com/
How does the "Patriot" propose regulation of prostitution if it was legalized? Should the state set a mandatory minumum per hourly rate so that laws can be readily enforced? Is it really your position that there is no crime committed when the rich and powerful engage in this conduct -- but, the poor prostitute warrants legal protection? What about the poor prostitute who sells her body for a few dollars or food money, yet has not been subjected to violence? You have no problem with that?
First, critical thinking and integrity in financial matters in a public official ARE more important than whether they patronize a prostitute; second, this isn’t about prostitution, the sex trade, or the degradation of women. This is about abuse of power. Politicians don't have to step down, nor do I think they should, because they patronized a prostitute. See Senator Vitter in Louisiana. Patronizing a prostitute is maybe a moral failing and one we don't like but as long as public officials don't violate the obligations of their office, I don't care. Just as if, rather than seeing a high paid call girl, we had found out that Spitzer had been smoking crack these last couple of years, I wouldn't care, as long as in doing so he did not violate the obligations of his office. (I find sleeping w/ prostitutes and doing drugs to be very similar violations of the law because in doing either it may be construed as contributing to if not participating in violence against marginalized, disempowered people.) So, it isn't his immoral behavior and the petty crime of being a John that was the reason he stepped down or needed to step down. It was that he had abused his position.
Crackass you wrong. This is not about abuse of power. What gubernatoriar power did Spitzer abuse? How did he abuse his position? If Spitzer hired hooker and gave her job in his administration at tax payer
expense, then that would be abuse of power. He didn't do this. Spitzer onry abused his wedding vows. This is about hypocrisy,
a crime you Americans detest above any sin. I no think Spitzer had to resign for any regar reasons, but onry because he rost the faith, confidence and trust of the governed.
You buddee wang
The state has no business regulating what anyone can do with their bodies. That's an argument I seem to recall a few of my neo-Marxist feminist friends making regarding abortion so I fail to see the difference when talking about something like prostitution. It's all about choice. People can do whatever they want with their bodies; hit the gym for hours a day or give out blow jobs for money. What business the government has in all that is unclear to me. As I stated in my earlier post, the situation is different when force is involved. Anyone forced to engage in prostitution is not making a choice and the full weight of the law should be brought against them. From what I've heard of the Spitzer incident, including the tapes of the escort herself, that clearly was not the case. For the record, as a more or less Libertarian I have no problem with prostitution, smoking, drinking, gambling, using drugs or any of the so-called vices that the nanny state seems so interested in regulating, so long as the people engaging in them are doing so of their own volition. If the state must play a role then why not use the model of Amsterdam; prostitutes are unionized and have state subsidized medical care. And I agree with crackass, Spitzer's crimes were hypocricy and financial chicanery, way more troubling to me than the fact that he was going to a hooker.
I take it that you also have no problem with incest, presuming that it involves two adults?
Have you been to Amsterdam? It's hookers are on displace in windows and all appear spaced out on drugs --- hardly coherent to "consent". Amsterdam is a dumping ground for Europe's losers. Perhaps you should learn something about your role model.
I think anonymous has missed the point of The Patriot's original post. America is still a country that loves the sinner but hates the sin. Witness previous scandals where the infamous are forgiven with media appearances, book deals, clothing lines, whatever ad nauseum. One sin, however, is unforgivable in this apple pie eyed country of ours, and that is HYPOCRISY. Spitzer did not only break his wedding vows and the law(s). He purported to be something he isn't. By engaging in the same crimes he so doggedly prosecuted as AG, he has exposed himself as a reprehensible hypocrite.
Speaking to Anonymous'obvious disdain for "the world's oldest profession" and those who engage in it, I can only say you are woefully naive. Anybody who thinks that sex is not a commodity bought and sold by men and women alike has her head stuck in the sand. Open a magazine, Anonymous. Turn on the TV (you have probably seen every episode of Sex in the City anyway). Put down the Dworkin and turn up the Lydia Lunch. Now that's exploitative!
i'm quite upset at what has transpired here in this dialogue. i was so upset that i called my buddy dong, who's a relative of my buddy wang, and he told me this:
my buddee wang has been toiring for yeals on imploving his syntax with clazy engrish ranguage, and hele it is on dispray fol the wolrd to see on the arr time numbel one brog the patliot, but evelybody no rook at wang's glowth because arr evelybody tark about is govenel spitzel and hookel!
ncest is a taboo in every culture and the fact that it is so distained is probably encoded into our DNA by evolution so no, I actually do have a problem with it. As for the rest of it, you bet! Two consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want without the government sticking its nose in the middle. True freedom of choice means that people can, and do, make bad choices. As a society we have to accept that individuals are not all robots and will have different views on how to spend their free time. Sometimes that might -gasp- offend some other people! I guess it depends on what society you want to live in, one where you can choose for yourself what to best do with your time and person or one where government agents like George Bush and Eliot Spitzer tell you what to do.
Fighting on the Internet is like competing in the special Olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded
Shut up, Toe_Jam....
Oh no, the mongerers are here!
Post a Comment