Hi Glenn--

I see this morning that about 550 letters ago you asked me if I was as angry with Bill Clinton as I am with Eliot Spitzer for handing the Republicans a reason for hounding him out of office. The answer, like so many in life, is "yes, but...." I was incensed by the whole sex scandal circus cooked up by Ken Starr, et.al. It was a pernincous waste of everyone's time and the nation's energies. As for Bill himself, on the one hand his actions with Monica -- unlike Spitzer's alleged activities -- weren't a crime (whether you believe this is ridiculous or not -- personally, I'm ambivalent). Yet, what Bill did, ethically, was worse. Having sex with a young employee, with all the obvious power imbalance, shows at best a disturbing level of disregard for others. Still, Bill was no hypocrite. He didn't go around condemning others or making himself out to be a shining model of rectitude -- so the natural impulse was to cut him some slack.

In any event, I very much appreciate your level-headedness in the midst of all this unsavory media attention to Spitzer's alleged activities -- which, after all, pale in comparison to all the very real crimes committed by our dear president (who's still very much in office).

That's good to know. The best lawyer I ever hired is in jail for that now.

Where how I feel and what I think don't synch up together.

I find the idea of prostitution highly distateful and I'm willing to grant the john's wife and family the status of victim. But I also recognize that that represents the feelings of one person and I don't have the right to impose my discomfort on others with the force of law.

This view puts me in a sufficiently small minority that all sorts of behaviors which have no hamful effect except to creep people out are nevertheless illegal.

The act between Spitzer and his Valentine for the night is no one's business but the participants and his family. It is a personal matter...but...I'll be damned, had I been his wife, I would have not been standing by his side when he made his announcement.

She let herself be used. He made a fool of her.

For that, he is a son of a bitch.

If these guys didn't resign, why should Spitzer?

(Oh, yeah - I forgot. IOKIYAR.)

Probably been said before, I know.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Post Of The Day!!

Maybe even week..

If so, I don't think there are going to be very many elected officials left.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Zero sympathy for Spitzer here. When you make your living holding other people accountable for misdeeds, you can't really expect them to feel very sorry for you when you're held equally accountable.

Whether prostitution should be illegal isn't the point - it IS illegal, and Spitzer is one of the people who helped keep it that way. Screw him - he's getting exactly what he deserves.

Why is it morally OK for a man to implicitly barter with a woman for sex?

Isn't that *really* what is going on when a man buys a woman expensive gifts, expensive meals and expensive entertainment? Or are men such altruists that the idea of receiving a sexual reward for the largesse never enters their minds?

How many of you moralist women have had men implicitly barter with you for sex?

Even more tellingly, how many of you have completed the bargain?

Maybe I've missed it in this jungle of comments thread, but I haven't seen much concern or wonder about what Glenn posted in Update III, and what Jane Hamsher posted on FDL. For me, that is what is important here and what matters...right now. The spitzer episode, as far as prostitution goes and all of the moralizing about it, is but a drop of water in an ocean of what to do or think about a circumstance that has existed since time immemorial. That circumstance is not going to be changed, moved forward backward or sideways from all of this up-in-arms chatter. The fact that our current political situation - which greatly effects us all - seems to be in the hands of the Bush Administration's so called Justice Department should be a major concern to us all.

To continue..

The USA is a de facto slave state, and about half of those slaves are black.

That the slaves are owned by the state and called "inmates" is just a moral fig leaf to hide the devastatingly immoral truth from the willingly blind public which chants, led by their masters, for ever more slaves..

If you think Democrats are going to fix this, think again. The prison population soared under Bill Clinton and there are no Serious Democratic politicians who even mention doing anything about it.

I'm so far beyond disgusted that the light from disgusted won't reach me for ten billion years.

Disgusted with liberals, who pay lip service to individual rights and yet allow this situation continue without the slightest murmur of protest.

Erasmus thought that in the country of the blind the one eyed man is king..

Erasmus was a flaming optimist.

Wow, Glenn....what a crazy thread to wake up to!

This is still Glenn Greenwald's blog, right?

I haven't strayed to some blog under the Fox umbrella, have I?

It's not 1953, is it?

Who cares about other people's sex?!?!?

Where did all of these ego-maniac moralistic judges come from? Why do any of you spend any amount of time concerning yourselves with the private lives of consenting adults?

Hey, thanks for the good intentions! I know you all just want to set up these moral parameters because you want the world to be a nicer place, but.......no thank you. Almost all of us would rather decide for ourselves what is/isn't acceptable behavior in our own private sex lives.

Also, if you are interested in critical thinking and cool ideas that are gaining steam in this millenium, let me make a suggestion. Try to make the transition towards not caring about what other adults do behind closed doors. Try to focus on how it doesn't affect your life at all. It will be uncomfortable at first, but eventually you will feel a huge weight off your shoulders and you may even have all sorts of new spare time. No more judgments! It could open up a fantastic new world for you.

Good luck!