Would that be more, or less, than the number of Dems in favor of telco amnesty because the majority of their constituents want them to be?

Just razzin'. 8')

Congratulations, you can cut and paste from wikipedia!

However, it has nothing to do with your absurd "interpretation". Perhaps you don't understand the difference between criminalization and decriminalization. Perhaps you think it is like flammable and inflammable. I assure you, it is not.

The Spitzer schadenfreude disgusts me and now I see why Barney Frank was so hesitant to condemn Larry Craig. There's no reason to be as hysterical as the television media get about this.

I'd just like to say that after reading the FISA post below this one, I bought a Salon subscription specifically to thank Glenn Greenwald for being the most substantive reporter in the country. I hope all my $29 goes to him. Keep up the good work, Glenn.

I just want to show GG that there are more things in this world than dreamed of in his philosophy, and sometimes, yes, banning alcohol might be the only answer to a chronic problem.

Indian child labor:-

" Most of the families sending their children to work in cottonseed fields are economically poor. But what is important is that there is no truth in the argument that it is the poverty that drives the parents to make their children work instead of educating them. Although the children's earnings form an important portion of the family incomes, yet that is not utterly indispensible. There are many ways for these families to fill in these gaps of income. It is noted that adults, especially men, in these families are working for fewer days.

The main reason for this is not the non-availability of work. They are spending a major part of their income on the consumption of liquor. There is no need to depend on children's earnings if the adults of the families are properly employed and do not spend money on liquor. Obviously, if currently underemployed adult women or adult men were employed instead of girls at proper market wages, their families would be much better off and will not be under pressure to send their children for work and depend upon their wage earnings. Meanwhile girls could spend that time investing in their education and playing."

from

http://www.indianet.nl/sobsum.html

How do you outlaw only forced prostitution?

By making it illegal to threaten a woman with violence or other reprisals if she refuses to work as a prostitute for you.

Today, what keeps a forced prostitute from getting away? How do you change that by outlawing only forced prostitution?

"Forced" prostitution is where the prostitute is compelled by threat of force to work there, rather than because she chooses to and is free to leave at any time. Seriously, why does that distinction elude you? I honestly don't understand.

It's like saying: "How can you outlaw rape but not consensual sex?" It's so nonsensical, it's actually hard to answer.

Is it the buyer's responsibility to report on forced prostitution? Is the buyer culpable if the buyer does not report it?

Nobody has the obligation to report crimes of any kind. Crimes are discovered through what we call "law enforcement" and "investigation."

While we're at it, let us outlaw only inhumane slavery.

Slavery is inherently inhumane. Prostitution isn't inherently forced. That's the whole point.

...that we follow ondolette's lead and do what might at first appear to be taking this thread off-topic, but given Glenn's actual premises (that our govt's priorities are skewed), would, in the big picture, be more on-topic...

...and discuss the issue of why it is okay for our government/military/administration, with the help of licensed psychologists, to plan and implement methods of mass torture for political purposes, which then create an environment for the more individualized torture we saw in the photos from Abu Ghraib or have read about at Guantanamo.

Frankly, I had enough of the sexual politics in yesterday's thread to last me many months, and if that's all that's going to happen here, I'll probably sit the rest of it out, and find a better use for my time.

Cheers to those who have already dittoed or saluted ondolette's post...

I'm including the link to his post at my sig.

And BTW:

Spitzer's failure to comply with prostitution laws did not retroactively make legal the Wall Street practices that stole billions of dollars from American citizens.

But it did raise the question of who will enforce the laws that protect ordinary citizens....

Glenn, thanks so much for seeing through the media shit-film that covers this story!

First, the last people who have ANY right to condemn Spitzer’s actions on “moral” grounds are people in the mainstream media who, in essence, propagated and celebrated the decision to burn, mutilate, and dismember men, women, children, and babies all for ad revenue, the arms industry, the oil industry, and the jollies of a couple of emotionally & mentally deficient, degenerate, deviant twits. While Larry Craig still goes to work every day (and solicits strangers to suck their c*ck by night) and George W Bush & Dick Cheney go to work every day and continue a program of mass-murder-for-profit, we listen to Republicans on TV “aghast” at Spitzer’s actions. Did Spitzer hook electrodes to the women he was sleeping with? Are we living in such a mind-fuck time that Spitzer’s actions are “outrageous”, but Bush and Cheney haven’t cross the pale of abominable behavior?

Second, ALL THAT obvious hypocrisy aside, the #1 issue here, when dealing with an administration that wiretaps its political opponents (and “undesirable” Americans), and makes no pretense that it doesn’t give a shit about the law, and a Justice Department already exposed as being corrupted to it’s core by pursuing partisan politics instead of criminals: WHO was behind this unusual hunt and WHAT initiated it?

I don’t expect our nation’s journalists to do its job and in investigate this story. Nixon lost his job for spying on his opponents, while today’s journalists need to be explained why that’s a crime!