New at Reason
Paul Karl Lukacs exposes another level of Eliot Spitzer's hypocrisy: His misbegotten war on sex traffic.
Comments to "New at Reason":
TallDave | March 11, 2008, 12:07pm | #
On another hot, steamy unrelated topic: did anyone notice the GISS numbers for Feb are the same as for Jan? Coolest Feb in 14 years, coolest JFN since 2000.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
Congrats on finding the the photo of Spitzer where he could pass for the Smilin' Bob guy from the Enzyte commercials.
Alan Vanneman | March 11, 2008, 12:21pm | #
Flawless hypocrisy on Spitzer's part. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Sadly, this "scandal" is more likely to encourage investigations and indictments for prostitution (because they're so damn entertaining, after all) than discourage them (because it's so damn gross to interfere with people's private lives).Mutts | March 11, 2008, 12:27pm | #
I'd consider it much more hypocritical if not for the fact that Asian sex tourism almost always does involve some degree of coercion, and some degree of traffic in underaged sex workers. In this particular case, you would need more than the assurance of the owner of the service to make the claim that Big Apple wasn't enabling pedophiles.Here's the crux of why we are to believe such a service was harmless: the Phillippines government doesn't enforce its prostitution laws when it can make money off of prostitution!
Look, Spitzer is an asshat, but so far this looks to be way out of proportion. So far, no one has shown that he did not pay for his hookers, and no one has shown that he performed his sworn duties as a public official any differently as a result of his pursuit of poon.
Now the big question: Will this hurt Hillary, as everyone expects? Or help her? Monicagate made Hillary for the first time a viable politician in her own right (don't ask me how). I'd bet money she benefits this time.
It has nothing to do with Hillary but that won't prevent bored pundits from bringing it up, tossing it back and forth then promptly forgetting about it.
Virgil | March 11, 2008, 12:33pm | #
I'm unfamiliar with NY politics, so when this story first broke, I figured the guy had to be a Republican. I was somewhat shocked to find out he was a Democrat, but the shock was tempered when I read that he was a 'law-and-order' Democrat.So maybe he is something like a white raven; but nevertheless the 'law-and-order' guy has been caught breaking the law and disturbing the order.
All is now right with the world.
Mark Bahner | March 11, 2008, 12:44pm | #
"Look, Spitzer is an asshat, but so far this looks to be way out of proportion. So far, no one has shown that he did not pay for his hookers, and no one has shown that he performed his sworn duties as a public official any differently as a result of his pursuit of poon."Ummmm...you mean if he knew someone else was breaking the law, he wouldn't do anything about it?
Whether it's a bad or good idea (it's a bad idea) prostitution is against the law in New York. The governor of New York is the chief law enforcement officer of New York. (Correct?) He doesn't have the option of looking the other way when someone is committing a crime.
It has a lot to do with Hillary, actually. The entire case for her political career has been more or less about whether she is or isn't synonymous with her husband. I don't believe even her strongest supporters can think of her outside that framework, and she takes whichever side helps her most: on economic issues, reminding voters of "when we were in the White House." Not subtle at all. Anything that happens within six degrees of Hillary that could recall those times does potentially affect that subtext and with it, her viability as a candidate. But no, no one is saying Hillary is responsible for Spitzer's mistakes.
Cesar | March 11, 2008, 12:45pm | #
You fools, it was all BUSCHO'sfault!/sarcasm
Seriously, read that comment. Partisan asshattery at its finest.
Fluffy | March 11, 2008, 12:48pm | #
Mutts, your point is well taken, but no one has asserted that this tour company was actually involved in the prostitution itself.All they did was transport people to the Phillipines - which any number of airlines do every day.
If it's illegal to market travel to people who may want to commit crimes at their destination, then why can't every airline that travels to the Caribbean be indicted? Those ads for going to Jamaica are obviously cashing in on Jamaica's association with drug use in the public mind. How about charters to Cancun? All those high school kids are going down there to break drinking and underage sex laws. What about the entire official ad campaign of the Las Vegas tourism bureau? Most of the hookers in Vegas aren't legal, but "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" as a slogan obviously plays up the Vegas reputation for lawlessness, at least in part.
Jennifer | March 11, 2008, 12:50pm | #
Whether it's a bad or good idea (it's a bad idea) prostitution is against the law in New York. The governor of New York is the chief law enforcement officer of New York. (Correct?) He doesn't have the option of looking the other way when someone is committing a crime.Ah, so he must've worn a blindfold when he fucked all those hookers, then?
I, for one, look forward to seeing whether or not Hillary denounces and/or rejects Spitzer's behavior.
Peter Griffin | March 11, 2008, 12:51pm | #
I feel bad for Mutts; his dreamy Knight Spitzer got knocked off his horse and into the mud.Bummerz.
Episiarch | March 11, 2008, 12:52pm | #
Ah, so he must've worn a blindfold when he fucked all those hookers, then?The fool! Blindfolded, he didn't need to pay so much for hot hookers!
kevrob | March 11, 2008, 12:56pm | #
Sexual hypocrisy aside, what about the financial kind? Spitzer seems to have taken pains to avoid leaving the kind of trail that prosecutors like to follow when chasing down various counter-economic enterprises (credit card records, frex), but at the rates he was being charged, might it not be possible that the Guv might run afoul of banking regs regarding the reporting of large cash deposits and withdrawals, not to mention what the IRS might do to him?Kevin
Pro Libertate | March 11, 2008, 12:59pm | #
Episiarch,It's that lack of insight that makes Spitzer absolutely unsuited for office. How is he going to reduce New York's $3 billion deficit when he can't even see cost-saving opportunities in his personal role as a high-spending john? Where are you, Client Number 9?
Mutts | March 11, 2008, 1:06pm | #
He doesn't have the option of looking the other way when someone is committing a crime.He has every such option, and no, he's the state's chief lawyer. I think it's a cute rhetorical trick to call an AG a law enforcement officer, little more. But whatever the case, his job is to prosecute (and thereby to deter) the most serious crimes in the most effective way possible. This requires using discretion. Given limited resources, nearly everyone would agree that sex crimes involving children, for instance, should take precedence over those involving consenting adults. And cases for which the evidence is strongest should take precedence over those for which the evidence is weakest.
The article wants to claim that Big Apple was as morally harmless as the escort service Spitzer visited (and perhaps more so because no Americans are being "victimized?"). That's almost impossible to believe, and yet the evidence we are given is a reference to a see-no-evil sex tour operator who has an axe to grind against Spitzer now. Phillippines is estimated 4th worldwide as a destination for pedos. "Yup, all of our customers were on a MILF tour! Sure I'm sure!"
Fluffy | March 11, 2008, 1:09pm | #
If Spitzer was doing this as AG, he wasn't only turning a blind eye to the prostitution.Did this company pay NY state corporate income tax? Did the hookers pay taxes and get withholding done?
By structuring his withdrawals and paying in cash, Spitzer was conspiring with the pimps here to engage in a massive tax fraud.
Seriously, it's a stretch but I want the prosecutors here to be as creative in finding new applications of existing law as Spitzer himself was whenever he felt like bullying someone to score points with his progressive pals.
Episiarch | March 11, 2008, 1:14pm | #
I love it: Mutts is actually trying to make excuses for Spitzer.Priceless.
Roger Maltz | March 11, 2008, 1:15pm | #
I hope Roger Stone offers a more "juicy" statement concerning this news, preferably a diatribe laced with terms like "sociopath" similar to the reason.tv video. Nice.Fluffy | March 11, 2008, 1:16pm | #
The article wants to claim that Big Apple was as morally harmless as the escort service Spitzer visitedI would submit that it's moreso.
The tour operator wasn't directly involved in prostitution. We can dispute whether or not prostitution is immoral if you want, but there's simply no way that flying people to an airport [after which they might leave and go find prostitutes] is worse than actually soliciting a prostitute.
If I see 10 guys on the side of the road wearing buttons that say, "NAMBLA Conference or Bust!" and I pull over and charge them $10 each for a ride to the next town, I have absolutely no moral involvement in anything they do in that town. Regardless of what I "should have known". I quite literally don't have to care, in terms of moral responsibility. I am my own moral agent and the NAMBLA guys are their own moral agents. Charging someone $10 for a ride is the same moral act no matter who gets the ride, where they're going, or what they will do when they get there. It's morally identical whether the guys who give me $10 are NAMBLA members or nuns.
Yeah, but Fluffy, what if they are the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders? Would you still charge them $10, you immoral bastard?
Jennifer | March 11, 2008, 1:22pm | #
Charging someone $10 for a ride is the same moral act no matter who gets the ride, where they're going, or what they will do when they get there. It's morally identical whether the guys who give me $10 are NAMBLA members or nuns.I disagree, in situations where you know that by giving these people a ride you're helping them to harm another.
Paul | March 11, 2008, 1:23pm | #
(and Spitzer’s statement that he “acted in a way that violates my obligation to my family” certainly sounds like an admission), the governor’s hypocrisy—and his belief that there is one set of laws for the little people and another set for Great Men like himself—is obvious.The problem here is, Spitzer, like all public officials never EVER plead guilty to a crime. How many of our local Washington pols, both large and small have been busted for OBVIOUS drunk driving and none of them submits to a breath test, and none plead guilty. This is standard operating procedure. Had Spitzer publicly gone further than keeping this a personal family matter and moral compass problem, that would be a tacit admission of guilt that could be used against him in a court of law. Being a former Atty General, Mr. Spitzer is going to play his cards very close to his chest.
In fact, just to add to my post above, if he's indicted, I'm predicting a "not guilty" plea at minimum, and at maximum a "no contest" plea.
J sub D | March 11, 2008, 1:28pm | #
Libertarians are understandably of two minds about L’Affaire Spitzer. On the one hand, a dedicated public servant will probably lose his job, and may be indicted, due to consensual liaisons and payments that should be a private matter completely outside the ambit of Justice Department wiretaps. On the other hand, Spitzer’s been hoisted by the moralistic petard that he can regulate any and all sexual behavior with which he disagrees, wherever it occurs.Hypcritically, I am of only one mind. Fuck that moralistic asshole. I want the prosecutor to reach deep into the prosecutorial bag of evil tricks and pile up the charges. Conspiracy, money laundering, RICO, solicitation, aiding and abetting, the whole ball of wax. I want his life destroyed. I want him in proson. I want him registered as a sex offender. I want him disbarred. I want him taking piss tests while his parole officer looks on. I want the hammer of the state that he worships so much, that teat he has been sucking for decade, to come down on him like a cartoon safe.
Then we repeal all of the prostitution laws.
PC | March 11, 2008, 1:29pm | #
Is there some kind of uniform for these press conferences? This is downright strange:http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/877dfc36-925c-4774-8402-6902e290b844
Fluffy | March 11, 2008, 1:37pm | #
I disagree, in situations where you know that by giving these people a ride you're helping them to harm another.Only if you're involved in the harm or benefit from the harm.
If I give a guy a ride to a bank and he robs it, if I gave him the ride in expectation of sharing in the robbery proceeds I'm an accomplice. If I give him the ride in expectation of getting $10 I'm a cab driver.
I am extremely uncomfortable with moral theories that rely on my "knowing" what someone will do, if only because we don't really know what anyone else will or won't do, and also because it sets up situations that create moral blackmail. Your accountability for the actions of another should be extremely circumscribed and should not arise from basic legal and moral acts unless you're involved in the act or participate in the benefit of the act in some additional way.
ChrisO | March 11, 2008, 1:38pm | #
From a legal standpoint, he obviously wants to use his potential resignation as a bargaining chip with federal prosecutors.Politically, I suspect it is the Democrats in Albany who are the most eager to show him the door. From now on, Spitzer is never going to be anything more than "Client #9", and he will be politically neutered and provide campaign fodder for Republicans as long as he is in office.
In the personal realm, resigning would be the only way of minimizing the impact on his family, assuming he gives a shit about that.
brotherben | March 11, 2008, 1:38pm | #
Apologies for threadjack:CNN just reported Geraldine Ferraro said in California that Obama would not be in the position he is in if he weren't black.
Episiarch | March 11, 2008, 1:43pm | #
Politically, I suspect it is the Democrats in Albany who are the most eager to show him the door. From now on, Spitzer is never going to be anything more than "Client #9", and he will be politically neutered and provide campaign fodder for Republicans as long as he is in office.Thank you for reminding me of one of the reasons why this whole situation is so very wonderful.
Cracker's Boy | March 11, 2008, 1:43pm | #
"The problem here is, Spitzer, like all public officials never EVER plead guilty to a crime."And when they DO plead guilty, they unplead. See toe-tapping.
CB
alan | March 11, 2008, 1:45pm | #
Whether it's a bad or good idea (it's a bad idea) prostitution is against the law in New York. The governor of New York is the chief law enforcement officer of New York. (Correct?) He doesn't have the option of looking the other way when someone is committing a crime.Silly statement. As attorney general, Spitzer chose exactly what laws he would enforce, and those who would go after, all just happened to be high profile individuals or matters that would extend to him a shit load of publicity.
TallDave | March 11, 2008, 1:58pm | #
Given limited resources, nearly everyone would agree that sex crimes involving children, for instance, should take precedence over those involving consenting adults.I think most people here agree, but Spitzer himself prosecuted a few high-priced prostitution rings, and railed on about how awful they were.
Fuck that moralistic asshole.
Exactly. He's going to be hoisted on his own petard.
More than anything, this shows yet again that even the most vehement moralizers are often secret libertarians: clearly Spitzer was happy to utilize prostitutes even as he built a career on prosecuting prostitution.
Pro Libertate | March 11, 2008, 2:03pm | #
I'll forgive Spitzer if he--(1) Publicly repudiates his bullshit anti-corporate crusader crap;
(2) Legally changes his name to Client Number 9;
(3) Sheds his Democratic persona in favor of a Libertarian one;
(4) Campaigns for legal changes in line with his new libertarian values; and
(5) Marries Jeri Ryan. No divorce. Test case for legalized bigamy.
kinnath | March 11, 2008, 2:08pm | #
I'll try to keep it simple for you Mutts:Spitzer knows that prostitution is illegal
Spitzer prosecuted the operators of two other rings
Spitzer clearly understands the operations of a prostitution ring and the tracks that are left by clients using its services
Spitzer insisted on using cash instead of other means of payment to avoid leaving the tracks that a prosecutor looks for
In summary, Spitzer knowingly broke the law and took steps to avoid detection
Yet, Spitzer succumbed to arrogance and stupidity and managed to create a money trail that worried his bankers
This money trail led federal prosecutors to the prostitution ring
For a smart a man as Spitzer is, he still managed to get himself recorded committing a federal crime
There is no way to "excuse" this pattern of law-breaking
I hope he does hard time
Rhywun | March 11, 2008, 2:27pm | #
Spitzer's tax policy was just as wide-ranging as his anti-sex crusade. This included attempting to collect taxes on online merchandise bought from companies with no presence in New York, and even outright theft of legally purchased merchandise from the mail stream in order to force us to pay New York's higher taxes. And then he has the nerve to present us with a $124 billion (!) budget, double the amount I remember from just a few years ago.ChrisO | March 11, 2008, 2:33pm | #
The interesting thing will be where the financial investigation into Spitzer ultimately leads. If he's willing to play this fast and loose with one underworld business, it's not unreasonable to think there might be others.After weeks of merciless Hillary vs. Obama media overkill, this story is truly a gift from the gods.
Ganja Blue | March 11, 2008, 2:45pm | #
"Overpriced prostitute?" How do you know she was overpriced?I'm wondering, given warrantless wiretapping these days, if the Feds had a legal tap on his phone!
Gary Gold | March 11, 2008, 3:00pm | #
The same old story,the little head doing the thinking for the big head.People wonder why I don't vote.
rana | March 11, 2008, 3:01pm | #
"I disagree, in situations where you know that by giving these people a ride you're helping them to harm another."Only if you're involved in the harm or benefit from the harm.
If I give a guy a ride to a bank and he robs it, if I gave him the ride in expectation of sharing in the robbery proceeds I'm an accomplice. If I give him the ride in expectation of getting $10 I'm a cab driver."
Fluffy, what if you give the guy a ride to the bank, knowing he will rob the bank, in exchange for $10? In this case you are not a cab driver but a dumb accomplice who only got $10.
Yours is a bad example.
And while the airline may not benefit directly from prostitution in the Phillipines, it certainly benefits from increased sales from pervs going to the islands. Much like hotels in a seedy neighborhood, I suppose.
TB | March 11, 2008, 3:11pm | #
This guy was a whore for headlines his whole career.I am so happy his career ends over a headlines of him with whores.
R C Dean | March 11, 2008, 3:18pm | #
How many of our local Washington pols, both large and small have been busted for OBVIOUS drunk driving and none of them submits to a breath test, and none plead guilty."Wide Stance" Larry plead guilty to soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom. He did try to take it back, though.
Spitzer seems to have taken pains to avoid leaving the kind of trail that prosecutors like to follow when chasing down various counter-economic enterprises (credit card records, frex)
I think his real legal exposure here may be money laundering, since he was trying to conceal an illegal transaction.
I hope he does hard time
Me, too.
Fluffy | March 11, 2008, 3:19pm | #
Fluffy, what if you give the guy a ride to the bank, knowing he will rob the bank, in exchange for $10? In this case you are not a cab driver but a dumb accomplice who only got $10.You see, I disagree. If you give him a ride away from the bank with the loot for $10, I would consider you an accomplice.
This may seem like a petty distinction, and it may also seem like I am writing a bunch of actual accomplices a get out of jail free card, but I don't care. The growth of our surveillance society and a host of oppressive regulations on ordinary citizens arise from the belief that every citizen should be deputized to enforce the state's contraband, currency and tax laws. I think that no citizen who is obeying the law should be obligated to change his behavior because someone else might be breaking it.
If giving a guy a cab ride if he has claimed he's going to commit a robbery makes you an accomplice, then it's right for the state to make your banker, your electric utility, your mailman, your credit card company, your gardening supplies salesman, and every other damn person you ever meet into spies. It's right for those people to be imprisoned and bankrupted if they refuse to spy on you.
I think it's wrong for these people to be forced to be spies, so I therefore am forced to conclude that there is something wrong with the way we apportion legal and moral responsibility under our current system. If letting people get away with wilful blindness is what it takes to de-Panopticon the world, then that's what it takes.
Paul | March 11, 2008, 3:30pm | #
I want the hammer of the state that he worships so much, that teat he has been sucking for decade, to come down on him like a cartoon safe.Then we repeal all of the prostitution laws.
With no grandfathering.
Paul | March 11, 2008, 3:42pm | #
"Overpriced prostitute?" How do you know she was overpriced?From purely economic theory, you don't. Price, it's not what you say it is, it's what the market will bear.
However, one need not frequent prosititutes to know that paying $5,000 bucks for a little rumpy-bumpy/slap-and-tickle is overpriced.
Why should I pay for it? If I apply myself, maybe I can get it for free. -- George Costanza on paying for parking
Paul | March 11, 2008, 3:53pm | #
"Wide Stance" Larry plead guilty to soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom. He did try to take it back, though.I won't deny there are exceptions. However, this was a misdemeanor solicitation charge-- the charge in and of itself is a huge embarassment, with far reaching political implications (as Larry Craig knew when the cuffs were being slapped on). Craig took a calcuated risk: Plead guilty in the dark of night, pay my fine, whole thing goes away.
The types of crimes I'm talking about are a long way from sex in a public bathroom. Craig hardly even engaged in real criminal behavior.
Speaking of Hit & Run.
12. The Justice Bobbe J. Bridge Case (I'll have three for the road.). Public trust and confidence in the judicial system suffered a body blow in early March 2003 when newspapers around the state, nation, and the whole world reported Justice Bobbe Bridge's arrest for (1) driving her Mercedes while intoxicated at nearly three times the legal blood-alcohol limit, and (2) hit and run for sideswiping a parked pick-up truck and driving another seven blocks until citizens apprehended her. The public calls for her resignation or removal were deafening -- the majority of surveyed voters felt she was unfit to remain on our state's high court. But as a seasoned judge, Bridge knew how the system would work for her. The state's governor, the state's chief justice, and other prominent officials publicly praised her fine character and minimized her lawlessness.
Justice Bridge certified that her alcohol abuse was caused by mental health issues of anxiety and depression for which she need treatment, so a Seattle municipal court judge granted her a deferred prosecution conditioned upon treatment, and he dismissed the hit-and-run charges against her. Consider: What if a 3-times-the-legal-limit drunk driving the '94 Chev pick-up truck (defended by an "affordable" lawyer) had hit-and-run Justice Bridge's '99 Mercedes coupe, instead of the reverse? Would that drunk have received the same soft-and-gentle treatment as Justice Bobbe Bridge?
[...]
What I find most shocking is the prosecutors' and disciplinary officials' acceptance of her defense that she was not guilty of hit-and-run because she was too drunk to be aware of the fact that she had struck and damaged a parked vehicle.
Vincent Gigante | March 11, 2008, 4:22pm | #
I wonder how close or far are we from having a serious discussion(as a nation I mean) on prostitution laws?Probably closer than we are to a serious discussion on prohibition laws.
Paul | March 11, 2008, 6:23pm | #
I wonder how close or far are we from having a serious discussion(as a nation I mean) on prostitution laws?As I said in the other Spitzer thread:
It's times like this that probably make Spitzer wish prostitution were legal. Then it really would be a private matter.
zig zag man | March 11, 2008, 6:25pm | #
Spitzer has more money and sperm than he has brains and common sense.Priapus | March 11, 2008, 6:40pm | #
(Big Apple Oriental Tours has never been linked to child prostitution, which would be another matter entirely.)How so? The writer just made an argument that the US govt shouldn't be prosecuting violations of US law that take place in other countries, didn't he? So why would child prostitution be any different?
The Bearded Hobbit | March 11, 2008, 8:19pm | #
Fuck that moralistic asshole. I want the prosecutor to reach deep into the prosecutorial bag of evil tricks and pile up the charges. Conspiracy, money laundering, RICO, solicitation, aiding and abetting, the whole ball of wax. I want his life destroyed. I want him in prison. I want him registered as a sex offender. I want him disbarred. I want him taking piss tests while his parole officer looks on. I want the hammer of the state that he worships so much, that teat he has been sucking for decade, to come down on him like a cartoon safe.Then we repeal all of the prostitution laws.
.. I often agree with JsubD but this time he hit it directly on the head ..
.. Hobbit
Mark Bahner | March 11, 2008, 11:22pm | #
He has every such option, and no, he's the state's chief lawyer. I think it's a cute rhetorical trick to call an AG a law enforcement officer, little more.Ummmm...he's the governor of New York, now (if he hasn't resigned since I last checked) not the AG.
The Constitution of the U.S. says that the president shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." I assume the State of New York has something similar about the governor.
Quiet Desperation | March 12, 2008, 2:37am | #
I still can't get over how much he paid. I've had absolutely astonishing experiences with escorts in the $400 to $600 range who looked like angels. I can't imagine paying $5000 gains you anything more. He's not only a hypocrite, he's a huge chump of a consumer.And, my goodness, AVOID the agencies like ebola. Independent escorts only! Everyone in this "hobby" knows that.
Quiet Desperation | March 12, 2008, 2:44am | #
It's times like this that probably make Spitzer wish prostitution were legal. Then it really would be a private matter.He doesn't though. That how these assholes think. Laws are for "the little people." I guarantee he was a bully of some sort back in his school days, if not a physical thug then the leader of a clique where he could control other student's experiences. Think of how Charles Manson murdered through surrogates, to use an extreme example to make the point.
Fucking with people lives with something as private as sex gives guys like this a major high that makes an orgasm seem like momentary tic. They get off on the control.
You do not want to see the inside of a politician's underpants after a good debate over how much they are going to control the voter's lives and basically fuck with the population. It is a horror of Lovecraftian proportions. Cotton breifs and silk panties seeping with a black, oily emission, a fluid form of concentrated madness that has no right even existing in this world.
The horror... the horror...
wang | March 12, 2008, 5:34am | #
o, so bad!It is so complicated for me to understand it! Is it the right way to do things! Feeling so worse!Bruce Majors | March 12, 2008, 6:17am | #
J sub D will you marry me?Or at least meet me at lunch at the Mayflower? I only live 6 blocks from there
bruce majors | March 12, 2008, 6:21am | #
Tucker interviewed people who run a brothel last night on how you could spend $5,000. They said you couldn't unless either dangerous restraints/kink/asphyxiation were involved, or the hooker was supplying controlled substances. Since this hooker took Amtrak into DC rather than flew, drugs may have been involved.Dee | March 12, 2008, 10:35am | #
Vote for J sub D to prosecute this case to the fullest.With all the politicians and cops we send to jail there should be a Governers Row of jail cells.
Spitzer can have a cell right next the Edwin Edwards.
Perhaps a jail of only child molesters, rapists and murders along with all the politicians, cops and other public servants caught fucking over the public. Then anytime someone wants to run for election or take a job in LE they get a tour of the facilities and get to look at all the people in their cells with little plaques that read their offenses like animal descriptions at the zoo.
Then at the end just give them a wink and let them know you have plenty more space available.
bagehot | March 12, 2008, 4:47pm | #
As usual, it's not about sex but power. When you give the state more and more power, reach and money, officials will abuse their privileges. People forget that Bill Clintonthreatened Paula Corbin Jones with her job to get his way. Who knows how many Spitzers, Clintons, Vitters, Foleys and Craigs are out there trading on their power to get sex, and quite expect to get away with it? If you want less abuse of power, take that power away.
David | March 16, 2008, 2:38pm | #
Great article: just a few comments from a confused Englishman.Why does Spitzer stand up in public and apologise to his family? I understand that, for legal reason, he prefers not to say what he is apologising for, but surely that family apology should be a private matter.
The apology that should be in public is to everyone, Mr Barabash included, whom ex-Gov Spitzer has pursued, often ruthlessly, on 'crimes' related to prostitution. That, and a commitment to campaign for legalisation, would blow the smell away.
One last point- how and why anyone needs a tour agency to find a prostitute in Bangkok is an even bigger mystery than how one can blow $4000 in two hours in the US. But, never mind.
A couple of posters have questioned why I should be believed when I assert I had nothing to do with kiddie sex. On June 17, 2003, goons(oops, officers) from the NYS Organized Crime Task Force raided my house and the apartment of my partner armed with a search warrant and carried off our computers and nearly two dozen boxes of papers. If they had found even one scrap of paper or e-mail out of all that material linking us to underage sex, I would be in no position to give interviews. Apparently, there are a lot of people who are obsessed with that perversion, including some in high places. They need psychiatric help.
Libertarian PitBull | March 17, 2008, 12:47am | #
In response to Spitzer's hypocritcal witch hunt against the New York travel agency that promoted sex tourism abroad, regulated prostitution is legal in most counties of Nevada, so why didn't he go after New York travel agencies promoting tourism to that state as well?Demopublican police statists wanting to regulate the sexual activities of Americans abroad is nothing new. Back in the 90's the now thankfully late Jesse Helms got federal legislation passed making it illegal for U.S. citizens to engage in sexual activities abroad with anyone under the age of 18 even though the legal age of sexual consent in the majority of states in the U.S. is set at 16, and ranges from 12 to 16 in most other countries.