March 14, 2008

Two Professional Views

Sick of hearing about Eliot Spitzer yet? Don't be.

There's two interesting views to read - the first from a professional sex trade worker; the other from an investigative journalist who used to work uncovering racketeering for the U.S. Government, among many, many other things.

If you think there's no connection between those two, you may be surprised. Some questions:

An interesting point that I haven't heard asked (but half-answered by Rex Murphy): why is Spitzer alone? According to Murphy, it's because he was a schmuck. But come on:

Vitter had defenders.

Foley had defenders.

Gingrich had defenders.

You get the idea.

Why not Spitzer? And why is this a Federal prosecution and wiretapping - exceedingly rare events in prostitution cases? Why the activation of the Mann Act - an 85-year old law that is almost never used? Why did a bank go to the IRS involving Spitzers "suspicious" payments? And why did the Department of Justice concoct an elaborate sting operation for what is, in most districts of the U.S., a misdemeanor?

Part of the reason for the abandonment is because he is a Democrat - and the political left does have a habit of eating their own. Cries of "We're supposed to be better than that!" ring out on the sinister side; while the dexters gather around their fallen in a protective circle, pointing fingers outward at those who notice clay feet. It's the standard Republican tactic: demand to know why the media thinks it has a right to ask such personal questions until they get embarrassed and go away.

Don't laugh, it works.

Last question: for cryin' out loud, why isn't prostitution legal in the U.S., already (Rhode Island and Nevada excepted, of course)?

Labels: ,

posted by Thursday at 11:15 pm


Anonymous Anonymous said...

And why is it still only semi-legal here (Canada; that bizarre "you can buy and sell, but not proposition" thing)? Palast's theory is very interesting.

10:13 am  
Blogger Cheeks Filibuster said...

I agree with anonymous about that bizarre Canadian law regarding prostitution. It's kind of like the Miracle Ounce in California (not sure if it still exists) where you can own it, but you can't grow it, sell it, or buy it.

Canadian prostitution laws are set up to destroy sex workers if they are caught selling the service that they are allowed to perform!

I read the post by Mistress Matisse, thanks for that Thursday.

Oh, and finally got you linked, sorry about the delay :)

4:38 pm  
Blogger Thursday said...

Anon -

I believe that's mostly to keep out pimps. Living off the avails of prostitution is illegal, if you're not the one working. Unfortunately, this has complications if a pro wants to send cash to their parents, or to their kid in university. You can't really rove it's not from prostitution, so if they want to nail you, you're busted.

On the other hand, I do know of one professional who occasionally lists "WHORE" as her profession on her taxes, and has yet to have an issue with it.

Cheeks Fill -

The Miracle Ounce is alive and well out here in B.C. - but it's had very modest enforcement. Mostly, the no-grow rule is something the cops can use as an excuse to get onto property where they think something more serious is going on (gang connections, for instance). Private individuals almost never get busted.

Much the same attitude is evident with prostitution: brothels and escort services are occasionally busted, but almost never completely shut down. Street-level pros are brought in more frequently, sometimes to encourage them away from an individual or into a program; sometimes because of complaints from civilians; and sometimes just for good optics ("New Mayor X is Tough On Crime!").

For the most part, the cops out here reflect the reasonably liberal attitude of the populace. There's the occasional squeaky wheel and a response, but nothing much.

8:19 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home