DOJ being what it has become, Digby's and Horton's thoughts are inescapable. That's part of the problem now, thanks to Bush. Regardless of whether DOJ's work is spotless or not, anything they do now is open to suspicion, and reasonably so.

Sadly, DOJ cannot be trusted.

Do words have meaning? Are marriage vows and the Governor's oath of office conditional? Is there any point to legal codes? How about consequences for misdeeds/crimes? Can the leader of a government avoid being a role model?

Should he not be pursued with the same vigor with which, in 2004, he prosecuted 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island?

Are you really that dense?

But for the record, I now agree with everything she says because if I don’t I am admitting that I use prostitutes. Plus, apparently, in my heart-of-hearts, I always knew she was right, anyway. I was just lying to myself. Thanks for setting me free, Tina!

She landed on the squid and rode him down to the Octopuses' Garden and had tea with them

If you have been paying attention at all, you would know that I advocate only putting the johns and pimps in jail. They are the ones committing the offense.

I don't wish to infantilize women as some want to suggest.

Oh.

She offers a guy a blow job and negotiates the fee, but only *he* should go to jail. Because she, poor little thang, just isn't responsible for her own actions, since women are just bigger little girls.

One reason porn is legal is that the entire internet would collapse if it wasn't

But seriously on the question of the legality of porn. I've never thought about it. But if I had to hazard a guess -- and just for the sake of arguing-- the pornography industry (that is the one involving sexual relations between two adults) is highly regulated, with tons of standards and hoops for actors, producers and everyone involved to jump through. The government maintains ultimate control. In a certain way, it is the same as asking why certain drugs are legal with a prescription, while they are illegal without a prescription. Or why caffeine and alcohol is legal, while other drugs are not. The answer is regulation and strict government control. The production IS illegal under many circumstances, in fact. That is the only difference between legal and illegal activity to begin with.

On the question of Spitzer. I have no moral reaction. But last year I got a 500 dollar speeding ticket for running a red light ON A BICYCLE!!!! Because I couldn't pay the ticket, I had to do about forty hours of community service, which made my life hell. SERIOUSLY HELL!! Do I think Spitzer should resign. My visceral answer is yes, why do I have to obey the law and pay so much of my money (compared to my salary) and Spitzer can break the law so flagrantly and walk? Certainly, both laws are ridiculous, but that's beside the point.

And lastly, i've come to believe that part of the reason men become politicians in the first place--for the most part--IS to be able to go to high priced prostitutes. Its been one of the perks of high office since the dawn of time!

You're welcome, my dear.

But I do know something about the industry because I've had friends and clients in it.

I knew many too and they were generally fckd up, virus-ridden souls equipped with an inability to trust men (if they didn't outright hate them). I don't feel like I have to prove my "liberal" credentials by insisting that's a good thing and when I hear people say it is, that there's tons of "happy hookers" and that "nobody gets hurt" by it, I have to conclude they are on a different planet breathing air of a different atomic composition than those of us down here on earth.

But really what in the hell does any of that have to do with the former rising star of the Democratic party being caught with his pants down around his hypocrisy at the most inopportune time imaginable?

way to cherry pick out of context, girl.

Why didn't you include the rest of the post?

As I said, I don't know what the answer is to whether it should be legal or illegal. I just think that most of this discussion has ignored the human beings involved in prostitution in favor of the abstract "principle". That prostitution is intertwined with underage girls and boys, with human trafficking, and various unsavory criminals is FACT. I don't see how the principle you espouse can be separated from the issues of exploitation, poverty, human dignity, drug addiction, child abuse and misogyny that stew around prostitution like a dirt cloud.

And no, I also don't see how someone frequenting a prostitute, an act I associate with dishonesty and degradation, is somehow apart from any other assessments we consider legitimate to make about a person's character. Call me a moralizing busy body prude if you like, but the fact is that I think less of Eliot Spitzer now. I guess I don't see the appeal of that nature of transaction, sex with a stranger, but no, not two strangers mutually attracted, but one where one person is bought by the other.

And maybe it's a discussion for another day, but if selling one's body parts is degrading to our humanity -- an argument I've seen made -- then why isn't "selling" one's body for the purpose of another's sexual gratification also degrading to our humanity? I'm open to argument but my knee jerk assessment is that they're basically the same concept. We cringe at some poor fellow in Bangladesh selling his kidney to temporarily feed his family so a rich American can live. Don't we? Why? We don't care when one stranger gives his kidney to another because we recognize the legitimacy of choice in that case. Why is a young mother who prostitutes herself to feed her kids not also cringeworthy but instead just a choice? What do we think of the rich American buying that kidney? What does his demand have to do with supply? Is his demand legitimate? Because he's rich and dying and someone else is poor and starving? Is it an honest, ethical transaction? Why shouldn't we also think of the rich man buying that young woman in the same way?