It's impossible for those arguing for regulating prostitution not to seem heartless and unfeeling to the other side as they (implicitly) make the case for a (potentially) exploited group's being expendable. Arguing principle over people will often yield that result. -- Anonymust

Compared to the rest of the statements in the thread, this seems so unassuming, and yet -- to me, anyway -- it's the only one which could rightly be called wise.

As much as I'd like to believe that this is a Bush conspiracy--which the Don Seligman case *really is*--there are several things. It appears this investigation was apparently triggered by multiple $9,000 payments Spitzer made, which were (again apparently) recorded by multiple banks--this is coming off of talkingpointsmemo.com. Second, it was reported by the New York Times--not Fox News or the Washington Times. Doesn't mean it wasn't Bush & co., but I just don't think they're smart enough to leak to a significantly less partisan source. If Spitzer's dumb enough to go to a prostitute, which he is, he's presumably dumb enough to make lots of large payments that would trigger the money laundering investigation. Do I think he should resign? No, I don't. But my gut tells me this isn't like Seligman.

"Governor Spitzer got caught with a prostitute as a result of a wire tap . . . Governor Spitzer probably authorized to catch people with prostitutes." Haha. Pretty much says it all.

Quiet Type: "I'm just trying to figure out exactly how hollow a human being you have to be to pay several thousand dollars for an hour of sex."

I agree. And there's evidence that Spitzer has a history of paying for prostitutes, so he's undoubtedly paid well beyond $10,000 just to get his rocks off.

Imagine that same $10,000 paid to a human-rights charity, or a charity like Oxfam that helps feed people.

A bottle of good-quality hand lotion costs maybe $5. A Victoria's Secret catalog is free. So for $5 you could still have a pretty good time and save $9,995.

Or, you could spend $200-$500 for a really nice evening out with your wife -- dinner, a play, some flowers, maybe a horse-carriage ride near Central Park. Toss in another $20 for a nice copy of the Kama Sutra. Something tells me Spitzer would have no trouble getting good sex from his wife, who by the way is really cute and looks a little like Jennifer Aniston or Laura Linney.

Instead, he spends $4,300 on a prostitute, which is sort of like paying $4,300 not to have sex with his wife. Apparently he wanted the prostitute to do something considered unsafe. (Base jumping?)

All moral considerations aside, I could no longer trust Spitzer on the economy alone!

men who are very successful with women may also solicit prostitutes, esp. if they have sociopathic tendencies. The two are not mutually exclusive.

And only enough blood to run one at a time.

Who I would be willing to wager a considerable sum were sociopaths..

Both were far more successful with women than the average guy.

Sociopaths can be very charming when they wish to be. Just look at how many people who really should know better that are taken in by GW Bush..

Think about high school/college.. Was it *really* the truly nice guys who had all the dates?

Or was it the shallow, egotistical jerks with a nice car and a smooth line?

If you are going to ask for a major overhaul of public opinion and perceptions of morality, instead of arguing that this disgusting treatment of women be accepted, why not argue that men be taught to respect women enough not to buy them? Would that be any less difficult?

It's a great idea, but it will never happen... unless enough men take it upon themselves to make it happen. The numbers are not in our favor.

Alan Dershowitz, famed defense lawyer (and not by any stretch a raging feminist), trying to put it all into perspective for us:

"Men don't use their brains when it comes to something like this," he said. "They think with a different part of their body and that part of the body, the level of brains, there are no relationship to the level of brains in the skull, unfortunately. And when people think with that organ of the body, they make these kind of really, really terrible mistakes."

Iow, men like Spitzer (et al.) store their brains behind their codpieces, but most of them are not as obvious about it as GWB is. So, of course it's shocking every time we find out. [Again, I note the exceptions in these comment threads.]

Based on personal observations over decades, I could have posted something like Dershowitz's comment much earlier on... but I would have been properly flamed for it. It's okay for Dershowitz to say such a thing, but not one of us.

Ages ago, I had it in mind that we needed a newer and updated version of Lysistrata, complete with musical numbers featuring a men's chorus wearing plastic codpieces molded like brains, but I couldn't think of a logical ending for the play. Neither could Aristophanes. He meant the whole thing as a joke. Ultimately, the women failed.

Legalization of drugs may end the criminals' control over the drug market, although this is debateable, and we haven't really tried it yet (I'd be willing to).

Is there criminal control over the alcohol distribution network in the USA?

In fact, the experiment was tried and worked, legalizing alcohol manufacture and sales drove the criminals out of that particular line of work.

Alcohol is a drug, just like any other and worse than more than a few.

When was the last time you saw a shootout between alcohol distributors?

FISA laws, listening in on terrorist conversations, are already being used to get back at government officials who DARE to challenge and prosecute the power structure.

This country is WELL PAST DONE. And you all buy this shit.

I’m completely with Glenn on this. One of the more interesting and ironic rhetorical techniques I’ve seen from some of the commentators is for those who say how really, really big this is and then go on for paragraph-after-paragraph how excitable, weird, what-have-you Glenn seems to be for arguing to the contrary. After having a president who has absolutely wrecked our country put into office largely on the strength of a similar scandal, it should be those who self-righteously and breathlessly decry Spitzer and deem him not worthy of his office who may want to take the deep breaths. Spitzer may take personal pleasure in screwing prostitutes, but, his successor, like Clinton’s successor, may take political pleasure in screwing 99% of everyone else. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has had more than one friend who had voted for Bush say, “Maybe a blow job wasn’t so bad after all!”

I was glad to see Glenn’s second update discussing Scott Horton’s take on what we really should be focusing, issues which JKP1000 touched on in his comment. Several disturbing narratives (to early for me to call them facts since some of them seem to conflict, which is problematic in itself) already are emerging:

• As Glenn discussed, the rarity of prosecuting those who hire prostitutes at any level of law enforcement, much less at the federal level.

• As Glenn also discussed, the Mann Act has a history of being used in this country for politically-motivated prosecutions, including, as Scott Horton pointed out, Jack Johnson and Charlie Chaplin.

• ABC News indicates that Spitzer may be prosecuted under an obscure statute called structuring, which, according to their article, is making a series of financial transactions designed to obscure the true purpose of the transactions. David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo gives an example of this as follows:

If I'm remembering my white collar crime law correctly, structuring is basically trying to avoid triggering the federal reporting requirement for any cash transaction that exceeds $10,000. So a series of $9,000 payments to the same person in a short period of time would raise suspicions, for example.

• As David Kurtz put it, "If ABC's account is accurate, the whole case is sort of anti-climactic. The feds start out thinking they have the New York governor on the hook for bribery -- and instead discover that he's just skulking around with high-priced call girls," then it would appear that the Justice Dept. was focusing on the individual rather than the crime, which, as former Attorney General Grant Woods (Republican) pointed out in the recent segment on 60 MINUTES regarding the Gov. Siegelman case, is strongly indicative of a political prosecution.

• Scott Horton also pointed out how expensive this investigation seemed to be to bust someone on either hiring a prostitute or to divide up a few checks to hide that fact.

• According to Talking Points Memo, the fateful phone call took place on Feb. 13, which is not even four weeks ago. Pretty quick work for a Justice Dept. that apparently has been sitting on investigations of Republican lawmakers for a year or two, cannot seem to find time to get Siegelman’s paperwork in order so he can appeal his case, and cannot muster the resources to look into several incidents of rapes allegedly committed by Blackwater employees on their female co-workers while in Iraq or the multiple deaths of Iraqis committed by Blackwater employees. Also, it didn’t take much time for this secretive and security-conscious bunch to let the prostitution angle get out to the public sphere

When these narratives are placed in the context of the demonstrated conduct of the Bush/Cheney/Rove Justice Dept., past and present, serious doubts arise only hours into this.

As for those who are dealing with the moral side of this, and have come to their own conclusions regarding the motives and relative victimization of prostitutes vis a vis their customers, Taylor Marsh has a very solid take on this side of the issue. I’m not a very big fan of hers since she began attacking Barack Obama and John Edwards mercilessly several months ago while under the guise of a politically-neutral observer, but I recalled her saying she had written a book or something several years ago on the prostitution game. I don’t like the way she went about supporting Hillary Clinton, but she does a good job on this, especially in pointing out that prostitutes are not necessarily the victim and that it’s often not about the spouse. Link:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27198