Letters to the Editor
Phoenix Woman
Published Letters: 194 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Have Craig and Vitter resigned yet?
[Read the article: The tragic fall of Eliot Spitzer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Then Spitzer shouldn't.
By the way, Frederick Bernanke brings up a key point:
2. Why did Spitzer's bank apparently contact the IRS of its own volition, in secret? What law is lurking out there that gives banks this kind of authority to rat-out its own depositors, with no notice to the depositor required? If Jane Doe writes some checks that some bank clerk thinks present a "suspicious pattern," can Jane find herself the target of a Justice Department investigation, of wiretaps and other surveillance?
The banks did this because Spitzer's been going after Wall Street and the financial industry. As Jane Hamsher says over at FDL, isn't it odd that the bank, when it saw something odd that looked like somebody may have got unauthorized access to Spitzer's account, didn't notify Spitzer but went to the (Bush-controlled and heavily-politicized) IRS instead?
-
Have Craig and Vitter resigned yet?
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If not, then Spitzer shouldn't.
Besides, since when does a bank go to the IRS instead of to the account holder if they notice strange transactions that could indicate a compromised account? Only, apparently, if the account holder is someone that the financial industry has a reason to hate.
-
@Aycharaych
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The whole barter-for-sex angle is an artifact of when women weren't supposed to be able to support themselves financially, much less work in the same careers as men. Lots of laws existed to reinforce this helplessness.
As a sort of consolation prize/pedestal/trap, women's virginity (or at least a heavy restricting of sex on their part) was offered up to women. It's the one thing they had to offer that had any value.
At the same time, that old framework holds that women -- through a mix of nature and nurture -- seem to be more focused on relationships than are men, who according to the stereotype are more interested in getting their rocks off than anything else. So the theory goes that the best way to keep the meal ticket around is to regulate his access to sex, and make sure that the best and easiest way for him to have sex is through marriage.
This is what "old-fashioned Christian morality" is all about. Sucks, doesn't it?
-
@tina schrier
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Susie Bright and some other sex-industry workers would have a discussion with you about this. They believe that the solution to the exploitation of sex-industry workers is not to sweep the sex industry under the rug and pretend that frequent busts will drive it out of existence, but to legalize and regulate it much as is done in the UK and other places in Europe. Remember, the way the pimp/madam justifies their existence (and their percentage of the take) is by serving as a buffer between the sex worker and the cops. They're the ones handling the bribes, etc. When sex workers can organize themselves and work without fear of being busted, then the need for such "protection" drops dramatically.
The weird thing is that many of the guys who most avidly go to prostitutes are usually the ones who follow the old morality that teaches that sex is bad. Thus, they follow the old "madonna/whore" dichotomy: Women who withhold sex = good; women who freely engage in sex = bad.
-
Again, Follow The Money
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's the real issue here.
If you read the ABC and other reports, you find that this whole thing came about because Spitzer's bank had been a) watching his financial transactions like a hawk and b) reporting anything unusual NOT to him, but to the (Bush-controlled and heavily-politicized) IRS and DoJ.
Think about it: If your bank saw something funny -- especially with the amounts involved -- their first thought would normally be "Oh crap, somebody's probably nabbed this guy's check card, we'd better let him know", not "Oh goody! We've finally found something we can use to nail him -- don't know what just yet, but we have".
Now why would his bank be watching his every move -- especially since Spitzer is himself so rich that $5,000 transactions to him are like pulling $20 out of an ATM are to us? We're talking about a rarefied world where $5k dinners and such are commonplaces; a $5,000 transaction, or even a series thereof, shouldn't have tripped any sensors at the bank.
It's because he's been the financial industry's worst enemy.
That's why Wall Street rejoiced when the news hit yesterday.
THAT's the real story here.
-
@Aycharayach
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Artifact the barter system may be but it is still alive and well and practiced by the majority of sexually active women.
Hmmm -- sounds like somebody hasn't been laid recently. ;-)
Actually, when I was dating, I went out of my way to pay my own tab. The only time I didn't was when sex was already on the agenda. (Then again, I'm the sort of person who buys flowers for guys and opens doors for guys, especially if their arms are full.) Though even if I weren't married, I'm now at the age where I'm unlikely to have to worry about who picks up the tab, for the same reason that male movie actors can be sex symbols into their sixties and even seventies (Sean Connery) whereas women's acting careers in Hollywood peak out by the time they're forty and are essentially over (aside from character parts that don't pay nearly as well) by the time they're fifty.