About That Spitzer Thing
Posted by
tgirsch
I honestly expected one of the Kevins (in particular, KTK) would cover this one, but since neither has, I’ll go ahead and do it:
What a maroon. (As Bugs Bunny would say.)
Spitzer must resign at this point, and rumors are that he will, of course. But the hypocrisy in this case is simply mind-boggling. There’s word that Spitzer may have been done in by the very anti-money-laundering rules he helped to implement, and if that’s the case, the irony would be delicious.
By this time, all the bad puns have been taken, as have the snide remarks about how it would have been male prostitutes if he were a Republican, so I’ll spare you.
If it’s actual thoughtful coverage you’re waiting for, you’re going to have to wait for one of the Kevins to address it, or hop on over to Talking Points Memo, where they’ve got a lot of good analysis.
UPDATE: Spitzer has resigned
“Spitzer must resign at this point”
Why? After all it was just about sex. No big deal. Right, Clintonistas?
Comment 3/11/2008
I cruise the NY Post web site to read Yankees news. One of their headlines on this story was HO NO! That’s pretty funny.
Comment 3/11/2008
More like “Ho Yes.”
Comment 3/11/2008
For once, I agree with Morris. Spitzer can stay. He should pay whatever fines are assessed. And then continue his job as governor.
But heck, as these folks point out, this is a great time to talk about how much harm outlawing sex, even sex for money, does.
(Also, doesn’t this suggest that “hypocracy” can be a synonym for “overcoming a conflict of interest”?)
Comment 3/11/2008
After all it was just about sex. No big deal. Right, Clintonistas?
I know I’ve mentioned this at least a dozen times before, but you’re sadly mistaken if you think I’m a “Clintonista.” As far as Spitzer’s concerned, I don’t think it’s the least bit controversial to say that the Democratic Party is better off without governors who spend tens of thousands of dollars on prostitutes.
Comment 3/11/2008
Dan M:
It’s not prostitution that should be criminalized. It’s pimping, which is a completely different matter. Woman exploits herself for money, not a huge deal. Someone else exploits woman for money, and does so in a predatory manner, that’s bad.
Comment 3/11/2008
TG,
Of course, it’s not prostitution that’s wrong, but sex slavery. Note that the law (but not the sting) Spitzer was caught by was primarily focused on human trafficking. (But leave it to the feds to get their priorities wrong…)
As far as the Democratic Party and politicians who buy sex, I think actually the party would do a lot better to make it a public part of their platform to support what the entire fucking human race wants, namely sex. Oh, and freedom. Duh.
Comment 3/11/2008
I doubt “pimping” applies, at least in the archetypal, 70’s blacksploitation movie sense. Spitzer wasn’t cruising Hunts Point looking for twenty dollar BJs.
I don’t know why it’s a given that Spitzer should resign either. If people want to judge him for his actions, that’s their prerogative. If he’s too embarrassed to be in the public eye after this incident then that is his.
Personally, I don’t see how this incident (or Billy C’s) is anything but divisive party politics - deep down, how many people out there think that infidelity is an offense that should be punishable by the loss of one’s job? The number of people who feel that has to be disproportionate to the public pressure put on an elected official to step down after getting caught with his/her, ahem, pants down.
Read my lips, no new sexual partners.
Comment 3/12/2008
I’m a little surprised that some of you are so willing to defend Spitzer on this one. It doesn’t matter whether or not you think prostitution should be illegal; the fact is, it is illegal, meaning that Spitzer — who runs as a tough, law-and-order candidate — broke the law. And in doing so, he tried to end-around the very anti-money-laundering provisions that he himself championed. Further, it seems clear that this wasn’t a one-off incident, but a pattern of behavior. Further still, he did all this across state lines, making them federal offenses. The hypocrisy here ought to be crystal clear, and it goes well beyond “simple” marital infidelity.
When a law-and-order executive gets caught red-handed violating the very laws he crusaded to enforce, I can’t imagine a more open-and-shut case for that executive needing to resign or be removed. (Well, I can, actually: If it turns out he used any public money for the purpose…)
Comment 3/12/2008
“I’m a little surprised that some of you are so willing to defend Spitzer on this one.”
They do seem eager to let him off the hook(er).
Comment 3/12/2008
I’m with Tgirsch on this one. I can’t see how he could have any credibility left after the campaign he ran and the way he positioned himself. If he had run on a different platform and not made ethics, integrity and law and order important parts, then he may have had some wiggle room but not now.
Anything less than resignation would be an insult to everyone in the state. (especially since he has admitted his guilt already so there is no doubt regarding what he did)
Comment 3/12/2008
Tgirsch wrote: “I’m a little surprised that some of you are so willing to defend Spitzer on this one. It doesn’t matter whether or not you think prostitution should be illegal; the fact is, it is illegal, meaning that Spitzer — who runs as a tough, law-and-order candidate — broke the law.”
And I think that may be the crux of the argument, that he broke the law, and he did have a rep of confronting evil-doers everywhere. The irony, of course, is that Larry Craig and David Vitter still have their seats in the Senate.
Comment 3/12/2008
I agree with tgirsch that the problem here is more one of illegality than infidelity. For myself, I’d add that I find a Spitzer’s use of a prostitute for sexual gratification morally troubling in ways that sex with a willing partner would not have been.
Comment 3/12/2008
Brooklynite:
While I see your point, I’m not sure it’s fair to imply that a prostitute is necessarily an “unwilling” partner…
Comment 3/12/2008
“If he had run on a different platform and not made ethics, integrity and law and order important parts, then he may have had some wiggle room but not now.”
So if someone minimizes ethics, integrity, and law and order in his campaign then he should be held to a different standard of law and morality?
Comment 3/12/2008
It may not be appropriate to say she’s unwilling, but it’s certainly a stretch to claim that she’s a partner.
That’s the core of what I’m getting at. It seems to me that if you’re looking for sexual gratification, you can get that on your own. If you’re looking for a sexual experience with someone else, you can get that by finding someone who wants to have sex with you, and having sex with that person. (And yes, there are people who have a hard time finding such people, but no, I don’t think Eliot Spitzer is one of them.)
If you use a prostitute for sex, it seems to me that what you want is something other than simple sexual gratification, and something other than sex with another person. It’s using another person as an instrument of your sexual gratification, and that strikes me as creepy.
Comment 3/12/2008
Morris wrote: “So if someone minimizes ethics, integrity, and law and order in his campaign then he should be held to a different standard of law and morality?”
Not to get off topic here, but does the above apply to someone who misleads the public into invading a country that posed no threat to us resulting in the deaths of 3,000 American troops, reducing our credibility in the world community, and costing the tax payers untold millions of dollars, or does it only apply to matters of sex?
Comment 3/12/2008
“Not to get off topic here, but does the above apply to someone who misleads the public into invading a country that posed no threat to us resulting in the deaths of 3,000 American troops, reducing our credibility in the world community, and costing the tax payers untold millions of dollars, or does it only apply to matters of sex?”
Who are you talking about? I don’t know of anyone who misled the country, at least not since Clinton.
Comment 3/12/2008
“It’s using another person as an instrument of your sexual gratification, and that strikes me as creepy.”
Doesn’t the prostitute use another person for her financial gratification? That strikes me as creepy. It seems that both of them were using the other person.
Comment 3/12/2008
Brooklynite:
I still don’t agree with you. Sex is (or, at least, can be) messy. It’s exceedingly difficult to find sex that’s “just sex” with no strings attached, and even more so when you’re talking about trying to find a true “partner” for such liaisons. But for purposes of this discussion, “sex” is kind of an imprecise term, because it has both physical and emotional components.
We’re veering off-topic here, but legality aside, while I certainly won’t defend Spitzer’s use of prostitutes — especially when you consider that he’s a married man, with the obligations that go with that — in the abstract I wouldn’t go so far as to qualify sex with a prostitute for purposes of physical sexual gratification as “creepy,” especially not when the prostitute in question is a willing participant who has something to gain (even if not the same “something”) and understands the nature of the relationship/transaction going in.
That just might be the longest single sentence I’ve ever typed. Where’s Dvorkin when I need him? I’m sure he’d be able to rip that sentence apart — both structurally and logically — in no time flat.
Comment 3/12/2008
For starters, I don’t think you’re actually disagreeing with me, tgirsch, since I’m not arguing that everyone is or should be creeped out by what creeps me out. I’m just saying that for me, given my somewhat idiosyncratic values, I find this troubling.
Here’s my deal, in a nutshell. I wouldn’t want to have sex with someone who didn’t want to have sex with me. I can’t imagine agreeing to have sex with someone under those circumstances, much less spending large amounts of money to make it happen. I can’t imagine deriving any pleasure from that kind of sex.
And yes, I hear what you’re saying about the prostitute’s free choice, and I’m willing to stipulate for the sake of argument that this was an uncoerced decision on her part. She wass still doing something she didn’t want to do, though. If Spitzer had paid her and given her a choice of whether to stay or leave, she would have left. He knew she didn’t want to have sex with him, and he had sex with her anyway, and he liked it.
And I just don’t understand the mentality that thinks that having sex with people who don’t want to have sex with you is fun.
Comment 3/12/2008
In that regard, at least, we’re on the same page. But again, I’m talking more in the abstract here, and I don’t think it necessarily follows that just because a prostitute is getting paid to do something, s/he wouldn’t do it if they weren’t being paid.
Comment 3/12/2008
That’s where I was going with the business about him paying her and letting her decide whether to stay or go, tgirsch. I just don’t buy the idea that a prostitute would be all that likely to choose to have sex with a john if he gave her the legitimate, no-strings-attached option of declining.
If you have sex with a prostitute, you’re having sex with someone who presumptively has no interest in having sex with you. If having sex with people who don’t want to have sex with you is fun for you, you’re a creep in my book.
Comment 3/12/2008
And just to follow up, I don’t actually agree that for someone in Spitzer’s position, it’s “exceedingly difficult to find sex that’s ‘just sex.’” If you’re a rich, famous, powerful guy — a guy who’s not all that bad looking and whose politics are right on — there are going to be attractive women who are going to be interested in having casual sex with you, and there are going to be ways you can establish contact with a few of those women.
Having said that, the fact that Spitzer was making his own phone calls and conducting his own cash transfers does seem to suggest that he was flying solo with this stuff, and that he didn’t have anyone in his circle that he trusted to help him out with logistics. Maybe, given that, it would have been a little harder for him to find an enthusiastic, discreet partner than I’m imagining. But still, “exceedingly difficult”? No, I don’t buy it.
Comment 3/12/2008
Apples to oranges.
Does jaywalking destroy his credibility?
One toke off a joint?
A D.U.I.? (Certainly worse than consensual head)
Was he really a “law and order” guy, or was he trying to hold specific people responsible for specific types of offenses by throwing the book at them? Not that I really care, or think particularly favorably of him - it’s just that I don’t know if breaking a law, any law, destroys his credibility. And, the crux of his law breaking is law, as it is represented in the media, is about prostitution, not the [stronger and more applicable to Spitzer] money laundering.
Finally, excepting a pimp beating his bitch until she hits the strip, the prostitute is completely willing to participate in sex with you - at least as “willing” as you are to put together that PPT presentation for your asshole boss, so long as you get your check!
Comment 3/12/2008
BKLYN,
You just scared the shit out of me - when I saw that Dvorkin link, I thought it might go to something by Andrea!
Comment 3/12/2008
Oh, sorry, that link was referenced by tgirsch - either way, seeing the topic is involving whoring and the like, I think my fright at the sight of “Dvorkin” was justified.
Comment 3/12/2008
BK,
And, let me assure you I’m not trying to cross any line here, but are you under the impression that every time you’ve had sex with a woman she did so because, “I want to fuck that sexy ass Brooklynite?”
I’ve fucked women who didn’t want to fuck me - I didn’t rape them or anything - they just didn’t really want to fuck me so much as they really just wanted to piss a friend or theirs who fucked me, or wanted to get back at their boyfriend, or any number of things. In fact, the first girl I ever had sex with, I had sex with her best friend a week later - I thought this whole thing was going to be easy, like it was that exercise where you get a penny today and it doubles next week, and then within a year or so Brad Pitt (or at that time, maybe Luke Perry) is calling you up and asking you where all the ass is at…
Sometimes, throughout the course of relationships, my partner has fucked me just to get me to shut up. Once I negotiated “road head” in exchange for going to a girlfriend’s niece’s school play once. I’ve won sex on bets from girls I was dating - within the context of a prolonged relationship, the circumstances resulting in sex can take on some odd characteristics.
I don’t mean to open a sort of Freudian can of worms here, but the dynamic surrounding sex can be pretty diverse.
Comment 3/12/2008
Digg, you’re right that folks have sex for all sorts of reasons, and you’re right that most folks have at some point in our lives had sex with someone who wasn’t all that enthusiastic about it. But I don’t think any of that particularly undermines my position.
It seems to me, first of all, that it’s understandable that folks sometimes stumble into sex with an unenthusiastic partner because they’ve misread the signs at a point in their sexual history at which sex, even mediocre sex, still feels like the brass ring. But as we get more experience, I think most of us learn to read the signs better, and come to understand that sex that isn’t likely to be fun for both partners is no great prize.
Remember that what we’re talking about here isn’t some kid’s enthusiasm blinding him to a partner’s ambivalence. It’s a 48-year-old man — a man who has other options — going to great trouble and expense to arrange for sex he knows his partner won’t want, and most likely won’t particularly enjoy. I’ve got a strong hunch that the lack of mutuality is often part of the appeal to guys like Spitzer, and even if not, it certainly isn’t a disincentive.
It also occurs to me that a lot of the experiences you describe — the betting and the haggling and so on — may have had an element of role-play to them. If two people are actually enthusiastic about having sex, and they get an extra thrill from pretending that something else is going on, I’ve got no problem with that.
And if that wasn’t the case in the situations you’re describing, and it was a matter of one partner indulging the other, there’s still an element of affection and mutuality there, particularly if the concessions weren’t a one-way street over the course of the relationship. That’s, again, very different than what Spitzer was doing.
Comment 3/12/2008
tgirsch,
That sentence is fine for one written online and on the fly.
If I were to read it in a book, I might get the vapors.
Comment 3/12/2008
digglahhh:
My former daughter-in-law is named Andrea. She used to get confused with the author.
Comment 3/12/2008
Brooklynite:
And just to follow up, I don’t actually agree that for someone in Spitzer’s position, it’s “exceedingly difficult to find sex that’s ‘just sex.’” If you’re a rich, famous, powerful guy — a guy who’s not all that bad looking and whose politics are right on — there are going to be attractive women who are going to be interested in having casual sex with you, and there are going to be ways you can establish contact with a few of those women.
This seems naïve to me. It’s not enough to find a woman who’s “willing to do it”; someone is Spitzer’s position would have to find one who also had a lot to lose if the affair ever came to light. That’s much more true for a prostitute — whose livelihood depends on the continuation of an illegal operation — than of just some random groupie type, who might become more attached than the original agreement calls for, and who is a lot more likely to do something rash. Again, I’m not saying I endorse the behavior, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as irrational as you seem to think it is, when viewed from that perspective.
Indeed, that truly makes the prostitute, from the John’s perspective at least, an “object” of gratification, just as you say it does, and that’s rife with its own problems. But the “ickiness” factor notwithstanding, if someone willingly goes into that line of work absent hard or soft coercion, and absent the infidelity aspect that’s present in this particular case, I don’t see the same inherent immorality that you seem to. And I certainly don’t think the motives for someone entering into such an agreement — on either side — are necessarily as repugnant as you seem to think they are.
In my youth, I was neither Don Juan nor [insert-clever-opposite-of-Don-Juan-here], but I don’t recall ever having a crack at what could truly be considered “no-strings-attached” sex. As I said way upthread, sex is complicated, and there are always strings attached. Spitzer just learned that the hard way.
Comment 3/12/2008
We travel in different circles, tgirsch, and we’ve got different experiences. On the question of what Spitzer’s options are likely to have been, I don’t think that either one of us is likely to convince the other — not here, at any rate. If you want to get together over a beer when you’re in New York, I can take a shot then.
One thing that does strike me, though, is that even if we figure that a prostitute is more likely to be discreet than an unpaid sexual partner — a premise I’m not sure I completely buy — you still have to weigh that against the fact that the revelation of a liaison with a prostitute is going to be far more damaging to a politician’s career than that of a run-of-the-mill affair. Can there be any doubt that if Spitzer had been caught sharing his hotel room with a professional political type, he would be in far better shape than he is now?
Comment 3/12/2008
Brooklynite: Odds are pretty good that with the price he was paying, she would present the appearance of really wanting to have sex with him. He would be using her services as tgirsch indicated, because of the secrecy. And again, at that price, discretion would be virtually guaranteed.
Doesn’t make it morally correct, but it does make sense from a logical unemotional point of view.
Comment 3/12/2008
Brooklynite:
Somehow I don’t think I’ll be able to get my wife to sign on to “meeting a blog commenter at a bar so we can discuss various degrees of perversion.”
But thanks for the offer.
I agree that it’s more damaging for Spitzer to have involvement with prostitutes come out than to have a run-of-the-mill affair come out, but I think most people would agree that the likelihood of the latter coming out is a lot greater. Not that it does Spitzer any good now.
I couldn’t see myself ever paying for sex, for reasons not dissimilar to the ones you’ve given: I don’t want to have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with me, and I’d hope that I never get to the point where I’d have to pay to get sex. But from a detached point of view, the transaction makes a certain amount of sense.
Comment 3/12/2008
Tgirsch, you never had a crack at no strings atached sex? What the heck do you think all those years in college were for?
Comment 3/12/2008
Quasimodo! That would have been a clever opposite of Don Juan! Oh, well…
Ted:
No, not really. I mean, I suppose there was probably an opportunity there somewhere that I missed (I’m often oblivious that way), but then I commuted to college and never lived on campus, so I missed out on a lot of that crazy college stuff.
Comment 3/12/2008
I want to throw my opinion out there on a couple of points in this discussion
1. I agree with TG, decreasing the likelihood of the public finding out about extramarital sex would be the paramount concern. The fact that the hooker scenario would be more damaging than the Hooter’s waitress is a small price to pay for the degree you can hedge your bet by going with a high-priced pro - joke’s on him though, sometimes even the blue-chippers bust!
2. Why do we capitalize the “j” in “john,” but not the “p” in “prostitute?” Seems inconsistent, not to mention unfair to guys named John.
3. As a father (in-law) it must be a dream come true to have a name that turns men off as much a Andrea Dvorkin (well, at least the fraction of a percent of men who recognize the name). If you’re a girl, it’s gotta suck to have that name. However, (don’t mean to be too personal here), any guy who does sleep with her gets to say he slept with Andrea Dvorkin and pass a polygraph; I guess that would be pretty cool.
4. Have you guys seen this girl’s Myspace page? A grand an hour for that - that’s the sexual equivalent of (insert virtually any current New York Knick’s contract). My girlfriend told me that under one of her pics on the page, somebody left a comment that read “you look kinda cute there, just kinda though.” That’s fucking hilarious!!
Comment 3/13/2008
2. Why do we capitalize the “j” in “john,”
Ummm, maybe because John is a proper name. Think so?
Comment 3/13/2008
Not in the context we’re talking about, it’s not. And according to the dictionary, it shouldn’t be capitalized in this context.
Comment 3/13/2008
My point*
_____________
Fred’s head
* not unique to points made by me
Comment 3/13/2008
hmm…
a hail mary pass?
a john or jane doe?
a pollyanna?
a judas?
a bloody mary?
a lazy susan?
My understanding is the “J” in john can be upper or lower case, and upper makes more sense to me.
Comment 3/13/2008
Why would the “j” in “john” not be treated the same as the “p” in “prostitute,” the “h” in “hooker,” or the “p” in “pimp?”
Is one any more of a proper noun than any of the others?
Comment 3/13/2008
“Is one any more of a proper noun than any of the others?”
Digg, why yes one is. See comment 42 for a list of similar nouns that have been adapted from proper nouns, all of which are typically capitalized. This is not about political correctness, or blaming the woman more than the man. It’s about the origin of the term “John” (or “john” since either is accepted use).
Comment 3/13/2008
Why don’t we capitalize it when we refer to a toilet then?
A cursory look into the etymology reveals john as a toilet and a prostitute’s customer come from different roots. I’m still leaving the above sentence because I think it’s funny, and it’s not really certain where john for toilet came from.
Anyway, I wouldn’t advocate capitalizing the above terms either. If pushed, maybe “Judas,” and “Hail Mary,” only because those two terms refer to an actual people (or at least established proper nouns
)named Judas and Mary, respectively. Ditto for bloody mary if that is indeed the root of the mary half - though that one seems more of a stretch than hail mary, even if the root is shared.
I’d also distinguish between John Doe as a hypothetical person, and A john doe, but that may just be me.
John was apparently just a term developed because customers gave whore fake, generic names.
I’m not sure where this places what my logical stance should be on “Tom, Dick, and Harry.” But, I think that’s covered in the distinction between “a _____” and just “____.”
Did I mention that “going off on tangents” is the top skill listed on my resume? Yeah, it’s right above bullshitting. If only I could find a field where the two were of primary importance… other than politics!
Comment 3/13/2008
Perfect skills to be a “color analyst” in a sports broadcast team, although for that position they generally want you to be an ex-player or ex-coach…
Comment 3/13/2008
My final comment is this thread is proof positive that the LL blogging team has been slacking lately and there just isn’t much to comment on here. “John” vs “john”? With all that’s going on?
Props to Billy Crystal. 60 years old and he got his bat on the ball in one major league AB. That is very impressive indeed.
Comment 3/13/2008
I hate it when life and work get in the way of my blogging! As busy as I’ve been, Kevin’s been even worse. Not sure what’s up with KTK, though…
Comment 3/13/2008
REPUDIATION AFTER EVERY MEAL
By Steve Plonk
Repudiation
Repudiate Repudiate after every meal
The more you repudiate, the better you feel
Embrace the enemy repudiate friends
It doesn’t matter what message that sends.
Repudiate Repudiate it feels so fine
Especially after drinking a bottle of wine
Feelings of betrayal have nothing to do with it
Especially if personal mileage is made from it.
Repudiate Repudiate
When friends have miscues
Especially after you’ve paid all your dues
Repudiation is awful fun
Especially after a friend’s day is done.
Repudiate Repudiate all your venal friends
Shake hands with your enemies and make amends
After all, isn’t that what the silly season is for?
Repudiate and run when you hit the floor.
Repudiate Repudiate when your reputation’s at stake
Hide and duck when your friends make a wake
Be sure the wave doesn’t crash over you
To repudiate whatever it is that you do.
Repudiate folks who don’t live in your Hood
It’s okay to repudiate, cause it’s all good
Don’t worry cause what goes around comes around
To paint rosy red all over the town
Repudiate what’s going down.
Repudiate
Comment 3/14/2008
Ted,
Fuck Billy Crystal! I know it should be fuck the Yankees for letting him do it. But, this mofo actually said in an interview that he got a chance to be a Yankee. Talent and quality work aside, he’s a sad, pathetic, little man if he thinks what he did is even the faintest simulacrum of “being a Yankee.” What, “fantasy camps” are too plebian for ex-celebs?…
Then Girardi defends Duncan, saying he was just playing hard? This after he rips the TB guy for barreling down his catcher (who was blocking the plate - you don’t do that if you aren’t prepared for a collision). So, the TB shouldn’t play hard… But, Duncan was okay because he was playing hard? Well, does spring training mean anything or not, Joe? If not, then you can be mad at the TB dude, but you also have to be mad at your guy. If so, then why the fuck are you giving ABs to washed up filmaker/comedians?
Thanks for bringing this up, Ted. I absolutely have to write about this.
Comment 3/17/2008
Digg, I certainly have no love of anything related to pinstripes, having grown up outside of Boston. My point was a 60 yo guy made contact with a pitch. That’s impressive.
I’m pretty sure Billy Crystal realizes he was not actually a Yankee - he was just expressing his pleasure at being able to do what he did. Would I want the Red Sox to let Matt Damon hit in a preseason game? No. I think it degrades the game a bit.
As for the TB thing. The Yankees have to present a united front, but several of the vets, and Giraldi himself, have talked to Duncan. They privately disaproved but publically supported him. That’s the baseball way.
Note that ARod had a chance to level the TB catcher yesterday and he didn’t even slide - just gave up. No doubt that did little to endear him with those Yankee fans that already question his heart. But it looks like he might be in a position to come close to last year’s nubers, so that should placate all but the most ardent ARod haters.
Comment 3/17/2008
Just another manifestation of today’s ludicrously PC environment. Men are men, this is what they do, and being governor doesn’t change anything. In Europe, this would probably be no big deal, everybody would shrug and say, “So he banged a hooker, big deal.”
Spitzer may be a hypocrite, but so is everybody else–there’s a skeleton in every closet in America.
Comment 3/17/2008
Pat,
Then, I must not be a man. Since I don’t do what men do, which is, apparently, drop thousands of dollars to buy sex from whoring wanna-be celebutants.
I agree that he shouldn’t have felt compelled to step down, but I don’t accept that paying thousands of dollars to fuck girls roughly his daughter’s age is simply a boys being boys thing.
Ted,
How would the fans feel if A-Rod dislocated his shoulder trying to knock the ball out of a catcher’s hands in ST. The thing everybody has to understand about ST is that the codes of conduct are different for different (levels of) players. A-Rod is just getting into playing shape, and easing himself in. Getting loose and not hurting himself is the goal. If you’re a minor leaguer you are competing to make the team, or perhaps even catch the eye of a scout for the opposing team. If you’re wearing a jersey with a number in the nineties, you should be be trying to go Pete Rose/Ray Fosse to score, if you’re an all time great still in the prime of your career, just please don’t fucking hurt yourself!
Comment 3/17/2008
“I agree that he shouldn’t have felt compelled to step down,”
How many state and federal laws does he need to break before he should resign his office as chief law enforcement executive?
Comment 3/17/2008
Digg, I agree with you re ARod. I’m just pointing out that a certain segment of fans will hold it against him.
Comment 3/17/2008
He’s having extramarital sex, I wouldn’t think he should feel compelled to resign had he simply had an affair. I’m not morally outraged by prostitution and subscribe to the George Carlin theory that it shouldn’t be illegal to sell something that it is legal to give away for free. So, maybe it’s a little sleazy, but I don’t really care what you do in your sex life provided your partner(s) is/are of legal age.
Gay, straight, orgies, whatever, as long as the parties involved are of age, I’m not really going to judge too harshly.
As I said before, if he felled ashamed and didn’t want to be in the public eye in the wake of people finding out about what he did, fine, step down. But, I’m not gonna be the one shaming him into doing it.
If you want to judge his character for doing what he did, that’s fine too. I just don’t necessarily think there’s a straight line to be drawn between that behavior and his capacity to perform his job.
Comment 3/17/2008
I’m going to disagree with you here, Digg, just because whether or not you agree with the law isn’t relevant in this case. The fact is, he did break the law, and we should hold our elected officials in particular accountable for that. Now you could argue that he shouldn’t necessarily have to step down, but should otherwise get whatever punishment the law prescribes for his violation. That’s fine. But I don’t think we get to look the other way just because we don’t happen to like the particular law he broke.
People in positions of power should be held to a higher standard. I realize that’s my idealism coming into play and that real life simply doesn’t work that way, but at some point you have to live by your principles.
Comment 3/17/2008
How does my view on the law not relate to my opinion on what Spitzer should or should not be compelled to do? I don’t think prostitution should be a crime, therefore I disagree with the prosecution of the solicitation thereof, no matter who the offender is.
I don’t think he did anything wrong, so I don’t think he should have to step down. Ditto for if we was found smoking a joint, or whatever.
I mean, the alternative is to privilege the law over your personal morals - it is to forfeit the right to develop your opinion based on your own thoughts. Think about your argument, and imagine yourself in the 1800’s, you’d be sitting here saying, “Digg, I hear ya, but truth is we can’t claim he shouldn’t have been lynched. After all, he was teaching black people to read.”
I know that’s my go-to analogy, but nothing really emphasizes the arbitrary nature of law, its disconnect from morality and its existence as an apparatus of power as well. If you base your feelings on their laws, you will ultimately wind up fighting for their agenda.
I don’t consider these laws, “our laws.” They are not mine, I was given no input. So I don’t feel that I should be obligated to advocate their enforcement.
If it’s good enough for David Simon…
Now, if you want to look at this from a class perspective, and ask why Spitzer escapes prosecution mainly as a result of his class and standing, that’s a perfectly reasonable discussion to have. But, I’d still feel compelled to note the caveat that the ideal shouldn’t be Spitzer getting prosecuted too, but nobody getting prosecuted at all. Assuming that’s not the case, the only reason I’d consider supporting Spitzer’s prosecution would be to vindictively seek a form of equality - but, at the end of the day, that would be cutting off my nose to spite my face.
Comment 3/18/2008
The problem is, you’re essentially arguing for anarchy. If everyone gets to ignore the rules they don’t like, then why have rules at all? If the laws are bad, then fight to get them repealed, don’t just pretend they aren’t on the books.
As to your go-to analogy, yes, there are cases where laws are so egregiously unjust that they cannot in good conscience be obeyed, but I really don’t think that this rises anywhere close to that level. And in Spitzer’s particular case, he had aggressively prosecuted others for the very crime he was committing, so it’s not like he has any moral standing to hide behind a “this law is unjust, so we should ignore it” clause. (Maybe mind-numbingly arrogant hypocrisy isn’t sufficient grounds to demand resignation in your book, but it is in mine, even if no law had been broken…)
Now, as you say, we can have the argument about whether the law should exist at all, and if it shouldn’t, we should get rid of it. But as long as the law exists, and isn’t grossly unjust, it should be fairly and consistently enforced.
Comment 3/18/2008
I think we both acknowledge the rub of this issue. I understand your point perfectly, and in the sense you frame the issue, yes, I should favor his prosecution. Under the existing system, he should be prosecuted. But, doing so only reinforces the existence of what I feel is an unjust law - so, I don’t really care.
What did you think of the David Simon suggestion? Would you claim that it shouldn’t even be considered since the law, as it exists, states that 3 grams of coke equals a mandatory federal felony?
We’ve already established you reject violent forms of protest. So, are we crossing civil disobedience off the list too, because it breaks the law? What’s left as a form of resistance? Blogging? (Obviously, I love the blog, and I’m not trying to question your dedication to change, I’m just making a point).
Saying that my rejection of prostitution as a legally punishable offense is tantamount to advocating anarchy is as much a stretch as me saying you being in favor of it is tantamount to supporting lynchings as punishment for teaching literacy to blacks.
The hypocrisy of Spitzer’s prosecution of others for similar acts is great, ironic fodder, but it is not cause for me to switch my moral views. If I make a moral decision, I’m obliged to give the benefits of that view to all to whom it applies, regardless of whether they’ve acted in accordance with it. That’s just the price of living by principle.
Again, the law is the horse here, it must remain before the cart, which is the manner in which it is enforced. After all, if I dispute the existence of the law in the first place, that precludes me from ever seeing said law as being “fairly and consistently enforced.”
Comment 3/18/2008
We’ve already established you reject violent forms of protest. So, are we crossing civil disobedience off the list too, because it breaks the law?
Wait, what?! I don’t mind you disagreeing with my positions, but I’d strongly prefer it if you limited yourself to criticizing positions I’ve actually taken. The straw man approach does not suit you.
In any case, the implication that Spitzer’s patronage of high-priced prostitutes amounts to “civil disobedience” is beyond risible. Further, what has historically made civil disobedience effective is the very fact that those who engage in it are subject to punishment, and that the public at large sees this, recognizes that that punishment does not fit the “crime,” and clamors for change. If we just ignore the enforcement of the laws in the first place, how can any of that happen?
Perhaps it was an overstatement to say that you’re advocating anarchy, but you still haven’t addressed the underlying point: why bother having laws, if they’re mere suggestions, subject to the whims and personal preferences of the individual? And how do you propose to actually get rid of bad laws if simply ignoring them and refusing to enforce them is also an option?
Comment 3/18/2008
Now New York has another governor with a deficient moral character.
Comment 3/18/2008
No, TG, you misunderstood. I’m not saying Spitzer’s acts were that of civil disobedience - given his stated positions on law and order issues, his actions were simply that of a horny dude.
I’m saying that if your stance is that Spitzer must be prosecuted because he violated the law, as is, then you are ostensibly condemning any act of civil disobedience. The “civil disobedience” in this case (though on a small, and individual scale) would be privileging your morals above the law and not felling compelled to support his prosecution on the basis of superficial law-breaking. You can exercise that disobedience by saying, “I know he broke the law, but I don’t agree with the law, so I’m not advocating his prosecution.”
By binding yourself to supporting his prosecution on the basis of the (il)legality of his act, you’d be bound also to not only disagree with the suggestion raised by David Simon about non-violent drug cases, but to support the prosecution of any juror acts according.
You are also separating the idea of ignoring a law, and the idea of trying to change the law. But, they are not always so discreet. For example, look at Mormon communities (the ones that still practice polygamy like Colorado City - somehow located on the border of Utah and Nevada -). Polygamy is still illegal, but the sheer volume of polygamists makes it impossible to prosecute. Or, look at, say, enforcing public drunkenness laws during an NFL tailgate. Decriminalization is a middle ground that can occur organically under situationally specific paradigms. In fact, as another example, soliciting hookers is basically decriminalized among politicians, right?…
So, at the end of the day you can say that the idea of the law being the law disappears somewhere between soliciting a BJ and lynching black people for reading, but you’re going to have to draw that line eventually, and it’s going to be arbitrary and individual. My line is as well. I’m simply saying that anybody can draw whatever line they want if they feel that the law is overstepping its bounds (a subjective thing, open to multiple interpretations).
Obviously, caveats about things like murder are assumed.
Comment 3/18/2008
My bad, I think Colorado City is actually on the border of Arizona and Utah.
Comment 3/18/2008
I’m saying that if your stance is that Spitzer must be prosecuted because he violated the law, as is, then you are ostensibly condemning any act of civil disobedience.
I don’t see how this follows. All I’m saying is that if a law exists, and is not inherently grossly unjust or unfairly and unevenly enforced, then that law ought to be enforced. If it is grossly unjust, then it ought to be repealed, and to the extent that civil disobedience can serve as a means to that end, I’m completely okay with it. If it is unevenly or unfairly enforced, but the law is not otherwise inherently unjust, then that disparity should be fixed, and if it cannot be fixed, then the law should be repealed.
That said, you’re using a “non-traditional” definition of “civil disobedience” in your particular context, which is a polite way of saying it’s bullshit.
As John Q. Citizen, you can advocate for or against anything you want. It’s not civil disobedience unless and until you are the one violating a law to make your point. So a lot of our dispute seems to be over semantics, in that regard.
You are also separating the idea of ignoring a law, and the idea of trying to change the law.
That depends how you define “ignoring a law.” Individuals ignoring the law, in a public act of civil disobedience, can be a way to drive change, as I’ve already stated. Those sworn to uphold the law, however, shouldn’t get to selectively ignore that law when it suits them. If those sworn to do so wish to make that stand and do so consistently, then more power to them. But note that they do so at personal risk. In the former case, they risk imprisonment. In the latter case, they risk losing their jobs, as well as imprisonment. They have skin in the game. They’re not sitting in an ivory tower somewhere arbitrarily dictating what laws should and should not be heeded.
but you’re going to have to draw that line eventually, and it’s going to be arbitrary and individual.
Only at a personal level. Where the rubber hits the road, however, you’re going to have to convince like-minded people to draw the same line, or at least a similar line. Else you’re just blowing smoke.
I’m simply saying that anybody can draw whatever line they want if they feel that the law is overstepping its bounds
I actually don’t disagree with that. But getting back to the topic at hand (Spitzer), I still don’t think it’s just to make exceptions to the law; not in this case. You can argue that the law is bad, and I’m inclined to agree with you. You can argue that it ought to be repealed, and I might be inclined to agree with you there, too. But to argue that we ought to simply stop enforcing the law, and that we should start with a guy who broke the law while prosecuting others for also breaking it, is going a wee smidge too far for my tastes.
Comment 3/18/2008
The civil disobedience thing was an attempt at me trying to draw the parallel between this and the Simon suggestion. The Simon thing would be an act of civil disobedience, this is really just an individual decision because the belief doesn’t translate into any tangible action, per se. So, in that respect I was indeed reaching with the semantics, but I think it is the same intellectual principle that drives one’s opinion on both, regardless what how we label the action (to the extent that forming an opinion is an action
)
I’m also not saying that Spitzer should get to conveniently ignore the law. I’m saying that I ignore the law in all regards (ironically, except for my actual behavior - though perhaps the fact that I’m a cheapskate has something to with it too). I can not hold Spitzer to a different standard because he professed to agree with the law, and acted to enforce it.
They say that the test of democracy is the extent to which you tolerate those who disagree with you. Well, the test of my commitment to freedom of lifestyle choice is the extent to which I defend it as it relates to those who work to minimize those very freedoms.
I’m not arguing that the country should decide this is the moment when we advocate repealing prostitution laws. I’m saying I made the decision to support that a long time ago to not give a shit if people want to sleep with prostitutes. I don’t care when random people do it; I don’t care when famous people do it. I’m not singularly advocating for Spitzer’s pardon, this is my opinion on a johns. Some dude soliciting sex under the Queensborough Bridge just doesn’t earn a post on LL, so I haven’t talked about it before.
And, if he used public money for it, throw the book at him! My money ain’t getting nobody off but me!
Comment 3/18/2008