Or were they investigating suspicious money transfers? The stories I read online (and a blog post at FDL) said that Spitzer's bank ratted him out for suspicious funds transfers (which, by the way, shows that Spitzer was either stupid or liked the thrill of possibly being caught). The original focus for the investigation was, naturally enough, possible bribery since the transfers were being done by an elected official. Wiretaps in bribery investigations seem very much in order. The prostitution angle only came in later, when the feds discovered what the shell corporations were all about. Now, maybe the source for this scenario was lying. And probably the investigators were salivating even more when the bribery angle turned out to be salacious. And almost certainly the leaks were politically motivated. I think we can be sure that another US Attorney, say, oh, Patrick Fitzgerald, would have handled things a bit differently. But should the investigation have been dropped once it was discovered that it was not bribery but merely prostitution involved? As much as we would have liked to have seen a Republican official involved in something like this rather than a Democrat, I don't think this should have been swept under the rug or even downplayed by the investigators.

“You're right on the media commentary, but the rest of doesn't make sense to me.”

Maybe if you attempted to leave your culture and visit another where their view on sex is far different than yours, you might start to understand. Go to Japan where I lived for eight years, talk to the prostitutes and Johns and listen to their ideas about sex. I will admit that the monolithic culture of Japan has not treated third world woman the same as their own, but essentially sex, love and marriage are separate and equal unlike the mess we have.

I don't understand why people insist on blaming Spitzer for not knowing the Bush administration was spying on him. I mean, really, is that the new public standard? So I'm supposed to agree that he (or me!) deserved being caught? Using possibly illegal means? So anyone who wants to stand up and say anything should first make sure that they aren't doing anything for which they might "come under a partisan microscope" (or any such quote that stands for illegal or inappropriate scrutiny)?

Wow, that's some standard. I can see all the "help wanted" signs now: "Perfect people need only apply"

Heres a funny conversation i had with a girlfriend of mine, who is lesbian and very feminist, concerning this topic, after she called me "sleazy" for making the very points you make here.

I simply asked her- since i already knew the answer- if she had ever used porn.

She said yes of course, so i pointed out that those porn actresses were engaged in prostitution, yet she had no problem being a "john" in those cases.

To her credit, she laughed and said i may be right after all.

Its really amazing the propensity of humans to moralize, even as they also act in ways contrary to their morality. And its all completely unconcious, isn't it?

Makes me wonder what i do that contradicts my "morality" without truly being aware.

In the end, i think, we may all be hypocrites.

As did LMW -- making superb arguments -- in the previous Spitzer post comments.

I can understand why Glenn had to revisit the consensual crimes issue. (And as a matter rhetoric it is better to call them that, rather than "victimless," or you end up in a quagmire as to what ripple-effect of the actions between or among consenting adults create "victims." We saw that already w/ Tina and others in the prior thread.)

In many parts of the blogosphere -- not all of them right-wing -- you'd think sex work was the equivalent of shackling women and gang-raping them. Any notion of a woman's ability to make her own decisions as to how she wants to earn her living (as well as MANY male sex workers) is missing from the equation, or glibly dismissed.

A few decades ago, The Andrea Dworkin/Katharine McKinnon contingent joined with the religious fanatics to pass an ordinance in Indianapolis banning pr0n -- the Indiana courts, mercifully, struck that law as unconstitutional. Prudes who want to coerce everyone else's private, consensual behavior exist on right and left; both would impose their moral preferences on the entire populace -- even if the moral posturing is not entirely rooted in exactly the same premises.

Finally, for those who do not GET IT. Glenn is not defending Eliot Spitzer per se. Anyone who cannot see that in his first and now this post, has reading comprehension issues.

Ummm, what exactly was the difference again?

Associates work longer hours and are paid a smaller percentage of the billing they generate.

I feel sorry for the nation, that apparently has an obligation to be outraged over elected officials' private sexual decisions.

I have never met Spitzer's wife and kids, but if it's my responsibility to care about the families of every public figure, I've got a shitload of dirty laundry to go trolling through!

> This is a perfect example of how warrantless surveillance could be used to stifle political dissent and destroy political enemies.

"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, and I will find something in them to have him hanged."

This guy lived 4 centuries ago, and he understood full well the potential for abuse of ubiquitous surveillance. How the hell is it there are millions of Americans who literally cannot conceive that that sort of power might be used against them for sheer political gain?

I love Glenn's post, he sums up nicely what I couldn't articulate in the last thread.

I also see your point, but the whole commodity thing, selling herself for marriage thing is what rankles even me, who agrees with you. This is not directed at you specifically, there have been a number of posters that have joked about the ring for sex thing, etc.

I chose to marry my husband because I love him and he's my partner. I choose to have sex with him for the same reason, not as a "trade" for security, $$$, etc. I hope he wants to have sex with me for the same reason, not because he owes me, or whatever.