Just as was true for moral crusaders David Vitter and Larry Craig, there is unquestionably a healthy chunk of hypocrisy in Spitzer's case

Because I love this quote, and will jump at the merest hint of an opportunity to use it, I present A Disquisition Upon Hypocrisy, by the Equity Lord Alexander Chung-Sik Finkle-McGraw:

“You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others-after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?

Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour-you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

Because they were hypocrites,” Finkle-McGraw said, after igniting his calabash and shooting a few tremendous fountains of smoke into the air, “the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves-they took no moral stances and lived by none.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age

Agree about Diamond Age relative to Snow Crash, however, we have to part ways when it comes to Jesus the Christ. I follow the Middle way in all things, including the Middle way itself.

“We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy,” Finkle-McGraw continued. “In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception-he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it’s a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing.”

How do you pronounce that?

That was about the most perfect example of a passive-aggressive attack I have ever seen.

You're good. Real good.

If these folks are really serious, why isn't Jay Rockefeller on the table? Hmmm?

Gonna throw a wild guess out there for ya, Sparky... 'cause he's in the Senate?

Strongly suggest you read the post before commenting.

You, Glenn, don't get to decide which laws matter and which don't

He doesn't? Dammit!! Glenn, send me back all those bribes I've been sending you. Here I was thinking you could get me out of that speeding ticket...

He prosecuted prostitution rings, and then got caught in the midst of one. Therefore he needs to step down. Yes or no? THAT'S the discussion that needs to take place.

Thanks so much for coming in and telling us what the discussion needs to be about. We've been adrift without you.

For what it is worth, Glenn's post was not about whether or not Spitzer should resign. That's a political question, and one I think reasonable people can have differences about.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that sarcasm precludes rational discourse. It's something I've not found to be true, living my whole life in a world that practically cries out for sarcasm and mockery on a daily basis...

Glenn's original post was "Who Cares If Elliott Spitzer Slept With Prostitutes?" Given that that is precisely the issue over which Spitzer would be forced to decide whether or not to resign, I'd say that's exactly what Glenn's post was about.

I haven't got the slightest idea what point it is you're trying to make, but I'll defend to the death your right to make it.

I haven't seen any argument here about whether or not Spitzer should or shouldn't have resigned, and it's fine if you think that's what we SHOULD be talking about. I'm not a New Yorker. It doesn't affect me in any way.

It's also fine if you think Glenn's sarcasm is the equivalent of a Malkin/Reynolds screed. I really can't understand why folks get so upset by people's "tone" online, but whatever.

High end hookers get STDs. They aren't prettier and they don't smell nicer because she was paid more.

Gotta throw out a big WTF? on that one...

I'm getting totally lost on this Julia Roberts side-issue. If it's wrong, is it less wrong if you make lots of money? If it's not wrong, is it more wrong to get ten bucks for a handjob?

Going back to the original post, stating what seems to be an obvious point: making something illegal does not make it impossible, and as far as I can tell has more chance of making it happen more and in more dangerous conditions. During Prohibition, we had bathtub gin. Criminalizing drug use and prostitution brings us toxic street junk and psychotic pimps.

There's no one, simple answer... both prohibition and total legalisation have their problems. The idea that you can legislate away badness is one that I would have hoped had been discarded some time ago.

People here, Glenn included, have said that prostitution shouldn't be illegal because plenty of prostitutes are not coerced or exploited.

I don't recall where Glenn or anyone else made such an argument. Can you provide a link to a comment that says that?

we should not outlaw prostitution just because some prostitution is forced?

But that's not what you said.