not the logic behind the law. Spitzer's a Harvard Law School graduate for crying out loud- it's not as if he didn't know that paying a woman for sex was illegal in most states--he decided it DIDN'T MATTER. He decided that the rules don't apply to him!!! As long as the law exists - and as someone whose responsibility is to uphold the law- Eliot Spitzer had an obligation to follow the law. Frankly, Glenn, I'm surprised at your take on this. This is a huge distraction, a blow to the Democratic party, and your response is to play on the "moral outrage" factor? That feels like dodging the bigger sin here- which is that Eliot Spitzer acted as if the rules don't apply to him. They apply to "other people". That's a huge disconnect and it led to all this. I think it's fine to talk about the "wisdom" of our current laws on prostitution, and we should throw in drug laws as well, because these are similar "crimes"--but do you really mean to say that we should accept law-breaking from our currently elected public officials- because "we wouldn't have many elected officials left" and we should ask only "who were the victims"? Really????

Legalize prostitution-keep it safe and clean. If only we could take a lesson from the netherlands but with advances and the ability to learn from their mistakes. And while we're at it why don't we legalize certain drugs? Ah, but then the priviteers will take over and make it impossible for the poor to use, oh...yeah the poor will stop using and losing.

What is it about this case that made him 'involved in a prostitution ring' rather than 'arranging to meet a hooker'?

I wondered that, too. I think it's a reference to the allegation that he actually seemed to be setting up a tab.

Let's impoverish you and then drop you on the ground of a society run by women whose most basic belief is that men are only good for what's between their legs, and good for only as long as the surrounding area is young, smooth, good-looking, and tanned.

Let's see how well and for how long you manage.

Of COURSE your stripper customers were well-protected by the bouncers at the club that employed them. They were a valuable commodity. For a very very brief amount of time. Then what? After they are no longer young enough to appeal to the typical male strip club audience? Then what do they do to earn a living? Then what protection do they find? They sure as hell will not get any respect from the men who formerly ogled them.

And if they tanned themselves unnaturally to make themselves look good for ogling men, they will have leathery looking skin even sooner than they should have in nature. You were taking simultaneously their money and reducing their working time in the overall scheme of things. How ironic. Yet you see nothing wrong with women selling themselves. Why should you? You profited from it.

it's not that I'm refusing to answer your question, its just that it's a diversionary tactic and as such is not worth my time.

In the time you took to write this post you could have answered my question easily.

Just because someone is driven to desperation by poverty doesn't mean prostitution is right. In fact, it's pretty much an admission of what I've been saying, that prostitution is not the Happy Hooker myth its proponents claim it to be.

Where do you get the idea that I'm a prostitution "proponent"? Where have I ever said jack about the happy hooker?

Why can you not understand that leaving people alone to do as they see fit with their own bodies does not mean that someone who advocates that completely agrees with what they might do?

So which is it now, are they desperately poor women on the verge of starvation or is it just another choice any woman can be happy with? Which? You can't have it both ways, now.

It can be either, both or neither. I have never in any way indicated otherwise.

I'm taking *your* *own* *position*, that prostitutes do it from desperation, and asking you the first logical question that popped into my mind. That question being, if prostitutes are prostitutes from desperation then what the hell are they going to do when that foul means of support is taken from them?

Own up to your own rhetoric, you made the claim that prostitutes are invariably prostitutes from desperation (and indeed I know that some large percentage are) then answer the question which inevitably arises from your stated desire to remove their means of support.

"Jane Hamsher is asking similar and additional questions about this very odd prosecution."

Spitzer is not being prosecuted. He has not been charged with any crime. His name was leaked in an apparent effort to destroy his political career and humiliate him personally.

"Then answer me this: What are those women who are engaging in prostitution supposed to do when their source of income is removed?

Tina Schrier refuses to answer this question and I would be willing to wager serious money that you won't answer it either.

You moralists would rather someone else starve than violate one of *your* moral precepts, precepts that are by no means universal.

Right offhand I can't think of anything much more immoral than taking away someone's sole means of supporting themselves and leaving them to starve in the street just in order to satisfy your own sense of self-righteous indignation."

What pathetic bullshit. Really, there are ABSOLUTELY no other alternatives than prostitution and that really is someone's "sole means of supporting themselves"? In this day and age?! Give me a break. As long as society/gov't gets off its lazy ass and ensures that people have other means of employ available to them other than prostitution, then yes, prostitution can remain illegal. It's doing the hard work of providing a lifeline to education -- hell maybe even microfinance is needed in this country now -- and other resources to lead the way to alternative jobs than laying on your back. And Western gov'ts are doing the hard work now anyway (but could be better) with outreach programs, social services, addiction centres, shelters, employment training, etc. all to encourage people to get off the streets and into other jobs. Maybe various states/levels of gov't can make these opportunities more accessible, not arguing with that.

So yeah, no one's leaving anyone to "starve in the streets", not with this plethora of resources. Unless that's their own intention.