You are being a little rough on AlecsMom.

She comes by her opinions honestly and sincerely. Many people who support prohibitionism do because they only hear one side and usually succumb to emotional appeals. She is smart and can figure this out. Just my opinion.

As gleefully illustrated by CBS evening news on March 12, the snooping into each of our finances (and people like Spitzer are labeled PEPs--Politically Exposed Persons) in the name of money laundering laws and regulations should disgust us more than any prostitution scandal.

Money laundering statutes are for the most part used to detect activity which, if we didn't have these ridiculous vice laws, would be perfectly legal--gambling, prostitution, drug trade.

Where's the outrage?

LOL, I've used that phrase before and thought I was original..

You have *no* idea how steamed serial polygamists get when you accurately describe their marriage practices.

First, let me express some sympathy. It's difficult when there are a half dozen people on one side when you're all alone in these kinds of discussions.

As someone who has often been in that position by choice I have zero sympathy..

It's actually quite easy and enjoyable when you have facts and logic on your side. See how many responses I get to my drug war posts.

Since AlecsMom has neither facts nor logic then she is entirely responsible for the treatment she is getting and the fact that she has come to a gunfight with a rubber knife.

Just saying hi ... waiting for a new thread to come up to drop by today, since there's no way I'm reading through over 600 posts doubtlessly arguing about the legality of prostitution and the lost potential (good or bad) of Spitzer's governorship.

-- IntrovertGirl

Bucky hit me!

Nevermind the debate:

Prostitution is naughty. Spitzer was naughty. Bucky is naughty.

That's it.

;-)

It's interesting, given the amount of time he has spent in Africa, that Kristof mentions polygamy as something that clearly should not be permitted.

He recently reported from a town in the Sudan I spent a year living about 10K away from, long ago now. The family compound where my hut got built was the home of the leader of the 15 household cluster that was the village. He had three wives, and a levirate wife (his deceased brother's widow, see the story of Onan).

This is a perfectly stable way of raising a family. These were very, for lack of a better word, puritanical people. Premarital sex was strongly proscribed.

There's nothing inherently immoral in polygamy. It's a widely practiced human marriage pattern; arguably it is the most common human marriage pattern.

Margaret Mead used to call what Americans practice "serial polygamy," although overlap, as with McCain, Gingrich, and others (including Democrats, I'm sure) seems to be very common.

Here is a short video of a medium sized sport bike, my son in law had one of these and used to race up and down Palomar mountain with it when he was in the Marines at Camp Pendleton..

Watch the speedo..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR-M1kldckU

When presented with facts by people with real world experience you either call them liars or run away and hide.

A moral coward..

Howdy!

I am now canceling the cab.

I'll glue wings on my luggage.

I'll be up the Hudson River soon?

Tell the hubby we will meet with your parents.

May I please burp the new cherub baby? Please.

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RAISEALARM-02-28-06

" They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

"When you mess with my money, I want to know why," he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

"The more I'm on, the scarier it gets," he said. "It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy."

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat."

I'll note again that Mona's question goes unanswered still.

First, let me express some sympathy. It's difficult when there are a half dozen people on one side when you're all alone in these kinds of discussions.

But I do want to get back to the idea of agency and adulthood.

Your argument seems to be, in slightly caricatured form to highlight the point, that women who engage in prostitution are inherently not mentally competent to make the decision to engage in the profession, because of a past history of abuse (although Kristof says "up to two-thirds" which leaves a lot out, and is no doubt overstated, given his source) or a current drug problem.

That is, if someone chooses to be a prostitute rather than a chamber maid, she proves that she is not competent to make that choice and shouldn't be permitted to do so.

Do you really not see a problem here? You frame the situation as women "forced" into doing something no woman could ever want to do. This seems to be, frankly, not possible. Women who have worked in the sex trade have written about it, and have made it clear that they made a decision to enter the trade, and remain in it.

Are you saying that these women, as well, were "forced" into this, and shouldn't be permitted to make this choice? Are you at all concerned about the gradations here? It's not uncommon for a man Spitzer's age and of Spitzer's wealth to take on a mistress, a woman who is in it for the money. Or, at least, would be out if she were not being provided with the apartment and the amenities that go with it.

But, in the end, as with all vice crimes, you can't have what you want. You can't make it go away. You can't keep people from gambling, from using drugs recreationally, from being attracted to the same sex, from following in love with people of the wrong race, or from paying for sex. (I include those middle two to illustrate that "vice" is a cultural concept, and that cultures change.)

I realize the tremendous power that the phrase "But we have to do something carries. So much of our legal system is bound up with trying to keep people from doing things that they not only want to do, but will do nonetheless. But just because there oughta be a law doesn't mean the law will be effective.

I urge you to consider whether the something you advocate doing is productive, or counter-productive. While you're adding up the counter-productivity, please include the fact that Spitzer is out of office for what he did, while Bush and Cheney are still in office, despite what they have done.