it will cease to be the public's business. Until then it matters.

It seems to me that the guys on the right and the left have one thing in common. They are willing to risk EVERYTHING.... for what exactly? What we need to learn about is why people in power feel the need to test their power. What kind of satisfaction do the Elliot Spitzers and the Larry Craigs of the world get from thumbing their noses at the very people they led? Is it self-hatred that makes them do this? Is it sociopathic?

BEcause let's be honest. Who really gives a damn about who does whom, in the bathroom or at the expensive DC hotel? Let their wives be suitably pissed about it. But what DOES annoy me is that you go to all the trouble of campaigning for and advocating for, and generally working for good people to get into government and on the rare occasions that actually happens, they go fuck it up so they can see if they really are all-powerful, really are GOD.

The tabloids last weekend were all full of Barack Obama's being into gay sex when he's high.

Jeeze. Am I really going to have to suffer through a Hillary presidency after everybody else is too disgraced to actually hold office anymore?

I suppose in your worldview, Spitzer should never have been trusted and now can never be trusted again.

You would trust someone who would break such a sacred vow?

Perhaps it is because I hold my family as my preeminent loyalty that I feel the way I do. I have little to no loyalty to any other entity, state, religion, nation, sports team or whatever.

To me those are all artificial loyalties which I have no duty to honor.. My blood relatives and those I deliberately, willingly and freely chose to pledge my loyalty to are those to whom I feel loyalty.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If someone has violated trust in such a basic way, they will most likely do so again.

So he (allegedly) hires prostitutes. Maybe he's a closet Republican't.

At least there is no talk of diapers....

Oh, come on! First, if it was a republican moralizing about how sex is bad, you'd be all over them. Second, Spitzer made a career out of prosecuting people for breaking the law, any law, relevant or not.

that this doesn't change the fact that what he did--if he did indeed do it--was a crime, and under current law, prosecutable as such, and he should not be given special treatment because he's who he is. And, also, it was incredibly stupid of him to do this, for all sorts of reasons.

But none of this makes me object any less to such acts being crimes, and to their being treated as serious moral offenses in any way comparable to, say, taking the legalized form of bribery known as campaign donations, or legalizing warrantless surveillance on US persons.

It's fascinating to me that visiting a call girl is cause for resignation, but violating the Constitution, torturing people, waging aggressive war that causes hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, all mean that impeachement is "off the table." What interesting times we live in.

The magic word here is felony. Spitzer, governor of New York, has committed one.

The story is about five hours old and yet you and hordes of others have him convicted as a felon. Generally, we have trials for that.

Surly, Glenn, you don't think that politician can choose not to obey laws he does not agree with. That standard would get the Bush administration off the hook for all kinds of bad business, wouldn't it?

Surely, you read what I wrote:

And he should be treated no differently -- no better and no worse -- than the average citizen whom law enforcement catches hiring prostitutes.

But do you make no distinctions? Nobody has answered this, so I'll ask it again:

is that any illegal behavior of any kind -- no matter how serious or frivolous, whether victim-creating or victimless -- merits resignation? If a political official smokes pot, or gambles in a poker game, or commits adultery in a state where adultery is a crime, are they now so morally beyond the pale that it is time for them to go? Is that the standard here?

Consenting or not, the adults involved committed a crime, which was decidedly not the case with Bill and Monica.

Lying under oath most certainly is a crime, under certain circumstances.

Nah. Then it would have been a farm animal, a cop, a child or possibly an oddly shaped topiary or vegetable.

Those who want legal prostitution - would you really be okay with your mother or daughter being prostitutes? Most likely the answer is no. I think the proponents imagine some other woman - some disposable woman who is not as good as their mother or daughter- to actually be the prostitute.

If you wouldn't want your own mother or daughter sucking dick for money, then don't wish it for someone else's daughter.

A $1,000/hr prostitute has a good job. It is not enough to be attractive to get this price -- many beautiful women cannot charge this amount -- you must also be very good at your job, like highly paid folks in any line of work.

I'm sorry, I've met far too many highly paid morons to believe that one must be good at one's job to make a lot of money.

Go and read the cartoon "Dilbert" for an avalanche of examples, Scott Adams bases the cartoon largely on stories people send him of the corporate world they work in.

The "Peter Principle" still holds as strongly today as it ever has.

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

I read that book over thirty years ago and I'm still reminded of it nearly daily in my dealings with people.

Here's the distinction:

Prostitution IS a crime. It's a crime meaning it's against the law. The law that we all are supposed to follow.

Abortion however, is NOT a crime. Big difference.

BTW- Abortion foes don't just state that abortion is morally repugnant, they state that it is ending life. That's why they WANT it to be a crime.

What does "genuine moral basis" mean? There's significant evidence that prostitution is harmful to the prostitutes so it certainly is not a victimless activity.

This is my point - you have to look beyond the mere fact that something is a crime. True, we as a society that is (ostensibly) based on law must generally recognize the intrinsic import of our legislatures' having declared certain things crimes. However, we cannot separate the moral dimension from the crime, particularly when we are dealing with "victimless" crimes.

Abortion was at one time outright illegal, in many states. So was interracial marriage. It was their immorality - or lack of a morality - that made them unjust (as well as unconstitutional). So, you cannot argue that anything that is a crime is innately wrong in a moral sense simply by virtue of being a crime. Similarly, you cannot justify the moral basis of a crime simply by pointing to the inevitable consequences of its being illegal. What makes prostitution generally dangerous for the prostitutes is the fact that it is an underground, illegal activity, and the prostitutes do not have the benefit of legal protection for what could be legal, if regulated, activity. A perfect example of this is prohibition and all the criminality attendant to that period.

Like I said to bearpaw, you are making a circular argument.