Okay, Cathouse is a bad example maybe, but it is demonstrative that not all sex-work is coerced, unsafe and bereft of any moral value.

Now, on to extending protection to (rather than withdrawing penalties from) Johns and pimps is something I never said.

A John who does not harm a prostitute (or fail to pay) should not be penalized for having sex with another consenting adult.

A pimp, on the other hand, by definition uses assault and violence, both physical and psychological, to coerce a prostitute to turn tricks for money or goods which the pimp in turn tenders.

Take the sex for money out of this, and this individual is still a criminal in the eyes of the law: fraud, assault, battery, rape, sexual assault, extortion, theft and racketeering. All of these should be sufficient penalty for so devious a scumbag as your average pimp.

But in illegal sex trade work, a pimp also "protects" his charges: he ensures them a market share, he bails them out and he provides them with fixes. A pimp forges a dependancy bond between the prostitute and the pimp, and that bond is enabled by the illegality of the sex trade.

My water is boiling, so I'll have to pursue this with you later.

I like to believe I live in a United States that, after the Trail of Tears, slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, Sufferage, the Gilded Age, the Labor Movement, Japanese internment and the Civil Rights Movement (and, sure, Stonewall), we are self-aware enough as a nation to avoid these hideous misdeeds.

George W. Bush believes history will judge him, and judge him to be great. I believe it will judge him to be the greatest failure since the dark days of graft and corruption near the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th. I believe history will hold Bush and Nixon up and judge Bush to be far, far worse.

I believe that when Osama bin Laden said that he would draw the West into endless, pointless wars with Islamic nations George W. Bush said, "well, that sounds like a great idea."

If war is like chess, and chess is like war, we have lost tempo and radicalism has gained it. In the end, everyone loses.

Glenn, I know you are to humble to acknowledge it but your tireless efforts to bring this issue to the forefront despite all of the many forces working to stifle the debate has had a positive impact.

I for one truly appreciate the work you and others have put into the "anti-amnesty" (or "pro- rule of law?") movement.

Thank you.

In business, (which class action suits most definitely are) this is called OPM. Other people's money. Once the non-profits have done the spadework of determining culpability, the for-profits will decide how much money can be made and whether it's worth pursuing. Why spend the resources when somebody else will do the hard work for you? Lord, what naive ninnies.

Caveat: IANAL (if that makes you feel any better about me), but I can't find the clause that enables AT&T to intercept my phone calls, text messages and internet traffic and deliver it to the government carte-blanche, and without a warrant.

In fact, if my admittedly limited knowledge of law informs me correctly, they are expressly forbidden from doing that.

So, when I pay AT&T $130 or so a month for wireless service, are they acting in good faith or in bad faith to the service agreement between them and myself? If they are not acting in good faith, I think I deserve a refund.

That's my money, and I'm not spending it to be spied on illegally.

How do you like them apples?

thanks for making me feel old. still, not quite as gray as old steve.. ;)

I haven't watched "Gross Pointe Blank" in a while. Will watch with gusto this evening.

Now you've gone and done it.. ;)

I look forward to monitoring this thread.

I do accept and believe the "official" version, if there is such a thing. I fall in the category of people who may put some spin on the subject: 9/11 was an expression of failed foreign policy, perpetrated by both Democratic and Republican leaders, and that it was a conspiracy -- one perpetrated by al-Qaeda, funded by rich Arab patrons (including Saudis and Egyptians).

I accept such things because of the lenses through which I view the world: as an ex-hacker, as an ex-security professional, as someone with a criminal bent and a conniving mind.

I know that a determined group, underpowered, and using low-technology methods, can penetrate the most sophisticated systems. It is hubris which leaves holes in security, hubris and denial.

I was awake that morning early, and I watched most of it on TV. The first thought that entered my head was this: "brilliant, elegant."

Crude, murderous and savage are appropriate terms for the attack. But there was a beauty to the simplicity of it.

Perhaps I see what I want to see -- a well executed tactical ploy perpetrated by an opponent who was at a disadvantage.

But I do not see a false flag operation, or a nefarious government scheme, or any of the things "truthers" see in the attacks.

To me, those theories are implausible and absurd. Ours is not a government with the skill and ability to pull such a thing off.

If you ask yourself the question: "who benefits?", and you ask it honestly, then the answer must be Islamic extremists. While a negative answer to this question is not exculpatory, the fact that as events unfolded al-Qaeda reaped the benefits of our policy blunders following 9/11 bolsters my argument.