Letters to the Editor
rodian
Published Letters: 73 Editor's Choice: 5
-
...and also
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Prolly poor form to append to my own post with a follow up, but a couple more points:
If a Bush daughter does drugs, she should go to prison like everyone else.
If a Gore scion smokes pot, he should go to prison like everyone else.
Paris Hilton should go to prison like everyone else.
etc.
This is the only way things will ever get better. The powerful have to suffer like everyone else, or they will never "get it".
p.s. - I didn't mean to imply in my previous post that you said the judiciary (or anyone else) should take any specific action. But your post very much does sound like a call to arms, and I'd be curious to know just who is supposed to be fighting this battle you champion, and how?
-
glenn
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]>> Oh, and the difference between prostitution and pornography? Pornographers aren't liars. Trust matters. Ask Elliot's wife.
> You don't have the slightest bit of information about the marriage of Eliot Spitzer and his wife.
You don't have the slightest bit of information about what I know about their marriage.
Come on Glenn, you don't agree about the fundamental value of trust?
> And before 2003, when sodomy was criminal in almost half the states -- too bad for the people who were prosecuted for having illegal sex in the privacy of their own homes. It was illegal, they knew it, and so they got what they deserved.
Yes, they did. They fixed the problem. That's the solution - not evading the legal system. Now I don't want to make a black and white argument out of this, because of course there are ridiculous laws. I believe in SD (where I grew up) it is still the law that if more than several indians congregate on your land at one time you can start shooting. It hasn't been a big problem. How many people were jailed for sodomy? I really don't know, but I'm going to guess very few. It was a silly law, everyone agreed it was so, and the law was easily amended.
I don't think you'll have the same luck campaigning for prostitution reform. I don't really disagree with your position on the issue, I just think it's a lost cause.
> Why are so many people having trouble reading this sentence from my post: He should be treated no differently
So what's your point? The next guy should be treated differently? Do you think he is being treated differently? I don't. Other than the fact that he's a highly public figure, which makes for a rather sensational headline, don't you think? You used him yourself.
-
priorities
[Read the article: Misadventures in logical reasoning -- and lessons learned from the Spitzer scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why such a focus, all around, on the political ramifications of Spitzer's dalliances? The people this affects most are his family.
Glenn, maybe you and Silda should sit down and have dinner sometime. I would love to see you explain to her how what Elliot does with his penis is a victimless affair, which should concern no-one other than himself and his hooker. Make it a family affair and bring Elliot and the girls too! I'm sure Elliot would love to have you represent him; maybe he'd even pay you. I'm sure he'd at least cover the dinner bill; it's the least he could do.
Rather ironic for someone to cop so many cheap page views with a shallow prurient article on what we should all think or not think about other people's salacious lifestyles. This isn't hard hitting journalism, it's just the same mumbly bar stool blather about penises and prostitutes you can take in at any pub in the world.
You wanna have a serious conversation? Talk to Spitzer's wife. Otherwise you are just another water cooler gossip with an opinion that just doesn't really matter.
-
more gg bs
[Read the article: Misadventures in logical reasoning -- and lessons learned from the Spitzer scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]> Here's a commenter -- one of many, many, many -- who has created this whole fantasy life where s/he knows the intimate details of the Spitzers' marriage, knows what "Silda" thinks about these things, knows who has breached what vows, knows their emotional state
Replace "commenter" with "blogger" and I think you're on to something. Your entire specious argument is nothing more than speculation wrapped up in presumption.
I didn't start this ridiculous conversation - you did. You can play dumb about the affects that prostitution has on people, but the fact that prostitution does in fact affect people outside of the immediate transaction is exactly why people rightfully generally frown on such behaviour.
You want to compile a compendium of bad analogies and pretend you've made a case for yourself? Let's have a contest. Some people drive 80 MPH without hurting anyone. So why is it illegal? Why have speed limits at all? Because even if people can usually get away with it, odds are pretty good that someone will eventually get hurt. Right and wrong isn't always black and white. We play odds, and I'd say, and society has so far said, that odds are that prostitution, on balance, leads to misfortune. Do you disagree? If so, on what do you base your opinion?
You're one of my favorite opinion makers, Glenn; but on this score I simply cannot comprehend what you are thinking.
-
GG
[Read the article: Misadventures in logical reasoning -- and lessons learned from the Spitzer scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]> what one spouse does to another that harms them emotionally is all of our concern, and we should make it part of the criminal law.
Emotions are one thing. Incurable diseases are another. Like I've said elsewhere, right and wrong aren't black and white. We look for the middle. Extreme promiscuity often doesn't end well. I don't have a moral position on the matter at all, really; but I still think it's unwise, and unfair to put other people at unwittingly at risk on account of choices they had no part of.