greypaladin wrote: "A rather ironic comment, to claim that a justification for prosecuting prostitution is because it's a front for organized crime. Of course, if it were LEGALIZED then there wouldn't be the risk/reward profit structure that invites organized crime."

If this is in response to my comment, then the real irony is that you've reworded my argument so much that you're responding to something I didn't say.

If it were legalized, then organized crime wouldn't be involved -- or at least, no more involved than they are in other legal businesses. But it currently isn't legalized. While it's admirable to and worthwhile to consider how the world should work, it's generally a pretty good idea -- especially for someone in a major leadership roles, like a state governor -- to also pay attention to how the world does work.

GlennGreenwald wrote: "You are, except so many of the people back then who were insisting that what Clinton did -- both sexually and in terms of his deposition testimony -- was none of our concern, are the same ones expressing such moral outrage over Spitzer's conduct.

It's really surprising me."

Personally, I thought Bill Clinton's behavior was of our concern, both for the act itself -- having sex with an intern showed appallingly bad personal and professional judgment -- and for the dishonesty. What I disagreed with at the time -- and still do -- was the extended and blatantly manipulative attention the behavior received.

DCLaw1 wrote: "Let me put it this way. If mammograms were made illegal, so that one could only get one by going to an organized crime operation that - by nature of their illegal business - was involved in violence, extortion, and other terrible activities, would mammograms thereby be rendered inherently immoral?"

Setting aside for a moment that this is a rather silly analogy, please note that I haven't commented on the morality or immorality of Spitzer's actions. As far as I'm concerned, judging the morality of his actions -- even if I were inclined to, which I'm not -- would take knowledge about the situation that I'm not privy to.

What I'm remarking on is the criminality of his actions -- which is relatively simple -- and the ethical and practical ramifications, given the legal status of prostitution and the real-world implications of that status, especially in regards to the office he holds.

Mizmoon wrote: "Those who want legal prostitution - would you really be okay with your mother or daughter being prostitutes? Most likely the answer is no. I think the proponents imagine some other woman - some disposable woman who is not as good as their mother or daughter- to actually be the prostitute.

If you wouldn't want your own mother or daughter sucking dick for money, then don't wish it for someone else's daughter."

Whether or not I would be "okay with" it, I wouldn't presume to make such decisions for them or any other adults.

(Heck, if the profession were legal and I was in a position to be picky about my clients and job conditions ... well, no, I probably wouldn't, even so. And that's a huge "if", I know. But it's an interesting thought.)

Perhaps the implication at Time is that real Americans don't care about the abuses of spying powers and real Americans support domestic spying without a warrant.

Because, of course, all real Americans know that this country was founded on ideals of unchecked executive powers.

I mean, look at the damage done by white nationalists and right-wing fundies to the campaign of ... um, what's-his-name ... the son of George Bush who ran for president in 2000. (Not Jeb, the other one.)

Not that he would've had much of a chance anyway, given how totally unqualified he was, but the people he associated with were political poison.

Pelosi is perhaps the worst example of a liberal racist: She sees Iraqis as nothing more than a template upon which to fight a partisan battle.

Meh. Yet another example of right-wing psychological projection. I'm not sure why it rates "quote of the day" status.

Is his faith justified? I for one am very glad that he's willing to test it. Because as long as everyone keeps pandering, there'll be no way of knowing whether the pandering is politically necessary, or just politically expedient.

Mike J Y Wood wrote: "As a liberal I firmly believe that the only way you learn is by listening to people who disagree with you. If you don't listen to people who disagree with you then you will never know if you're wrong. As a liberal I believe that we should spend our time listening, and talking, to people who disagree with us, and that is why it is essential to talk (sense in)to conservatives like those who watch FOX news."

There are other, far more effective ways of communicating with conservatives than via FOX News.

"Now there is obviously a great difference on avoiding a show that is clearly biased to 1 side of an arguement winning; stacking the guests, cutting people off while they're talking, etc. But if FOX news wants to give an opportunity for liberals to articulate and convey our beliefs to the millions of conservative republicans then GREAT!"

Maybe FOX News has changed drastically since the last time I wasted my time on them, but I never saw any part of FOX News that wasn't clearly biased. (Above and beyond what I've come to expect from any corporate media.)