Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
D.C. Madam
I have little interest in who is and isn't on the D.C. Madam's list, though the rank hypocrisy of Randal Tobias paying for sexual massages after a hard day of requiring foreign governments to swear off prostitution before receiving foreign aid to fight AIDS is pretty rich.
What's instructive about this mess is that it shows exactly what it takes to get booted from the Bush administration. Until now, the only thing that could get you axed from the White House payroll was disloyalty. Set the stage for and choreograph an ill-considered and horribly executed war resulting in the death of 3,300 U.S. troops? Get a soft landing as president of the World Bank, where the president says your admirable record fighting corruption in the developing world ought to offset the niggling truth that you yourself have some serious problems with corruption. Mislead the nation and the entire world about Saddam's WMD capabilities? Consider yourself Medal-of-Freedomed!
Ah, but hire an escort? Not in this no-porn, no-gambling, abstinence-happy administration. Have your resignation in hand by the end of the day.
The other slight benefit in all of this is we get to witness the preposterousness of people like Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt extolling the importance of privacy, droning on about "Scarlett Letters" and McCarthyism, and defending the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," likely because this scandal will disproportionately hit Republicans and conservatives, if not in sheer numbers, then certainly when it comes to hypocrisy. Hell, given the way Hannity's valiantly sticking up for the accused in this clip, you'd think there were Duke lacrosse players on that list. If this were a service catering exclusively to Democrats, I'd bet a kidney you'd have Hannity and Hewitt sermonizing about how this just goes to prove the moral depravity of the left.
Check the 3:20 mark for a particularly "oh, come on" exchange.
SPD|5.3.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Radley,
I hope for your sake that Rupert doesn't read H&R! You're the
only reason I'd read anything on FoxNews.com! :)
|5.3.07 @ 11:08AM|#
I can think of two reasons to watch this particular episode of Hannity & Colmes, laddie.
|5.3.07 @ 11:10AM|#
If Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt's names turn up on that list, I will join a monastery and devote my life to Jesus.
|5.3.07 @ 11:10AM|#
"Hell, given the way Hannity's valiantly sticking up for the
accused in this clip, you'd think there were Duke lacrosse players
on that list."
Yeah because the only reason anyone ever stuck up for a Duke
Lacross players is because they were well LAX players I guess. Had
nothing to do with a racially motivated witch hunt or anything and
no one who ever defended them would ever defend any other
injustice.
Why is it more hypocritical for Republicans to do this kind of
thing than Democrats? Yeah, Republicans like to thump the bible a
bit more than Democrats. Please show me one example of a national
Democrat who wants to legalize prostitution? I see people from both
parties going after porn and gambling and the like. Yeah, this
administration is worse than Clinton but it isn't the Clinton
administration was some kind of libertarian one. Moreover, the
current Democratic members of Congress will sure as hell take the
brick and mortar gambling industry's money in return for shutting
down internet gambling "for the children". They sure are not
rushing to do anything to stop the administration from going after
internet porn and would absolutely be a part of any lynch mob going
after a sex offender. Also, isn't the major objection to
prostitution a feminist one? That it degrades women and is nothing
but an expression of male power? I think it is just as hypocritical
of a neutered male Democrat politician who spends his time boot
licking NOW for campaign money and votes to be caught with a
prostitute as it is for a Republican moralist who spends his time
bootlicking the evangelicals for money and votes.
|5.3.07 @ 11:26AM|#
Say Radley,
How does Michael Brown fit into your "How this administration
responds" theory.
1. Lie on resume
2. Demonstrate gross incompetence resulting in untold
suffering
3. Receive "You're doing a heck of a job" pat on back from
POTUS
4. Name removed from parking space, desk packed, badge revoked.
Radley Balko|5.3.07 @ 11:26AM|#
John,
The problem with Hannity's sudden interest in people victimized by
the criminal justice system is that it doesn't square with, to give
just one example, his treatment of Abner
Louima.
|5.3.07 @ 11:26AM|#
Barney Frank is trying to repeal the internet gambling ban. There's one D who's at least trying I guess.
|5.3.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Radley, I was sort of expecting a post from you regarding the LAPD's recent use of force at the May Day rally. No input on that?
SPD|5.3.07 @ 11:30AM|#
[On Louima's statement, from Hannity's radio show]: "You're
once, twice, three times a liar."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Right-wingers, facts and
humor just don't mix.
|5.3.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Saddam's WND capabilities
Saddam worked for World Net Daily?
Eh, what do you expect from an IU grad.
|5.3.07 @ 11:35AM|#
In a perfect world, the list would include a bunch of
Libertarians.
Most of us don't make enough money to use such services. Not that
there's anything wrong with them.
When our wives/girlfriends/boyfriends found out they would exercise
their unenumerated rights to make us miserable.
The best part of the scandal is the delightful Schadenfreude of
seeing the supposedly righteous fall. They will say, "It was only a
massage" when they ought to say, "Publish and be damned."
|5.3.07 @ 11:35AM|#
John,
It will hit Republicans more than Democrats because Republicans
tend to hit these kinds of moral turpitude issues harder than
Democrats. That doesn't mean the Democrats aren't hypocrites too,
just somewhat less so.
|5.3.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Poxes on both houses and everything, but this administration has
twisted loyalty into a positive vice. I'm more concerned about
loyalty to the Constitution and to the nation than I am to persons
paying fealty to the POTUS or to any other high-level jokers.
Maybe patronage is back! I'm leaving now to go gather some
clients.
Apostate Jew,
I was kidding. I only meant that it would be nice if the LP was in
Washington in any numbers greater than zero :)
SPD|5.3.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Brain24,
Agreed. When your political party presents itself as the moral
superior to its opposition, expect a certain amount of glee when
your prominent members are caught with their prominent members
out.
Jennifer|5.3.07 @ 11:43AM|#
this administration has twisted loyalty into a positive
vice.
This administration's definition of loyalty is the same as that of
a gun moll.
|5.3.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Ach, not a one of you is going to discuss the buxom lass? The hell you say! This isn't why I lurk around Hit & Run. Nay, I'm going back to the Scottish National Party's blog--Reason be damned!
|5.3.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Jennifer,
It does have a mob-like feel to it. I don't view the administration
as "pure evil", though I disagree strongly with a lot of its
policies. However, their methods are. . .unsound.
Bhh|5.3.07 @ 11:50AM|#
I bet Sean Hannity hasn't been hiring any female escorts, if you
get my drift.
This is going to be the feel good story of the summer.
|5.3.07 @ 11:54AM|#
In a perfect world, the list would include a bunch of
Libertarians.
In a perfect world, the list would include my name.
Amateur and proud of it|5.3.07 @ 12:00PM|#
nothing but an expression of male power
I would have thought the opposite, namely that a powerful male (or
female) wouldn't have to pay for it.
mantooth|5.3.07 @ 12:04PM|#
"Yeah, Republicans like to thump the bible a bit more than
Democrats."
Yeah, and the New York Yankees spend a little more on players than
the Kansas City Royals.
Brian|5.3.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Yeah, abstinence for you but erotic massages for us. Similarly a Republican-backed bill in Ohio that just passed the senate (SB 16) says strippers cannot be within six feet of a patron and there can be no stripping between midnight and 6am. Their reasoning? Strip joints draw too much crime otherwise. Uh, hello...I say prostitution doubles. How about they love pushing their morals on everyone else but not so much for themselves?
|5.3.07 @ 12:09PM|#
"What's instructive about this mess is that it shows exactly
what it takes to get booted from the Bush administration."
Hello, Operator? Please get a message to Radley Balko that a life
spent wearing blinders sure must suck.
Jennifer|5.3.07 @ 12:11PM|#
It does have a mob-like feel to it. I don't view the
administration as "pure evil", though I disagree strongly with a
lot of its policies. However, their methods are. .
.unsound.
I'm not even talking about evil per se here, PL; I'm talking about
a sick sort of attitude wherein "loyalty" is considered a virtue in
itself, rather than something deserved only if virtue is already
present.
To make an extreme example: I love my boyfriend, but if ever I
discovered he were a serial rapist I'd damn sure do what I could to
help the cops nab him, rather than allow a sick sense of loyalty to
blind me to the harm he's causing others.
|5.3.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Jennifer,
Didn't mean you were saying that--I was just qualifying my
remark. I agree completely. This kind of loyalty is the kind people
at Nuremberg were hanged for.
Oops, sorry Mike.
|5.3.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Mr. Ed | May 3, 2007, 12:09pm | #
"What's instructive about this mess is that it shows exactly what
it takes to get booted from the Bush administration."
Hello, Operator? Please get a message to Radley Balko that a life
spent wearing blinders sure must suck.
That coming straight from the horses mouth...heh.
So, Mr. Ed, does it suck?
VM|5.3.07 @ 12:24PM|#
here. Have a carrot.
Hey - JimmydaG:
I'm out of glue. Dammit. Where's the freakin glue.
ah! of course! of course...
|5.3.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Don't think for a moment the Democrats don't thump the bible.
What would Jesus drive? They just do it for different ends but they
do it just the same.
Perhaps I am niave but I would imagine if you looked hard enough
you would find plenty of local Democratic politicians who want to
pass stupid laws like closing stip clubs and the like. Hell, the
Democrats run the city of San Antonio and the city banned lap
dances when I was there. This in a city whose biggest business is
conventions. Yeah, that will help you compete with Veges for the
next insurance exectutive convention. I wish it were just a few
evangelicals who pushed for crap like that, but its not.
The point is that everyone on both sides love to get up on the
moral bandwagon if it benefits them politically. The same Democrats
who will join the lynch mob to run some Republican out of town for
frequenting a prostitute will freequent them themselves and think
nothing of it. But hey it is Reason so the Democrats are always
superior to Republicans, so it makes sense Reason would be happier
to see a Republican go down than a Democrat even if said Democrat
is some for the children nanny stater who has dedicated his career
to destroying the Constitution in the name of stopping preditors
and put in a special order with the madam for the youngest girl
possible wearing a Catholic school girl outfit.
|5.3.07 @ 12:33PM|#
oh man, i love it. "it was just a massage". that's perfect. because whenever someone is feeling a bit tight and needs some muscle therapy - they call an upscale escort service. not a physical therapist, not a sports rehab clinic, fitness club, or reputable spa. nope - an escort service. for a massage.
|5.3.07 @ 12:38PM|#
"Please show me one example of a national Democrat who wants to
legalize prostitution?"
Barney Frank (who, as MassHole pointed out, is also in favor of
legalizing gambling).
At least some years ago I received a flyer from Barney Frank's
opponent claiming that he is in favor of legalizing prostitution.
His opponent seemed to think that would make the good people of
Newton, MA see red.
|5.3.07 @ 12:45PM|#
downstater | May 3, 2007, 12:33pm | #
oh man, i love it. "it was just a massage". that's perfect. because
whenever someone is feeling a bit tight and needs some muscle
therapy - they call an upscale escort service. not a physical
therapist, not a sports rehab clinic, fitness club, or reputable
spa. nope - an escort service. for a massage.
Begs the question: Were they licensed massage technicians? Good
thing they weren't in Hillsborough County, FL. Otherwise they'd be
in
serious trouble.
|5.3.07 @ 12:48PM|#
I haven't seen flailing like John's since the last time I went
fishing.
He seems to just know that Democrats are just as bad as
Republicans, on the theory that they've just gotta be.
mantooth|5.3.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Alright, John. I can always tell when your outrage index is
maxed because spelling goes out the window. I'm just saying, the
R's thump the bible more than a "bit".
You came up with an example, "What Would Jesus Drive." This came
from an evangelical group, not the DNC. Compare that with the Texas
Republican Platform or vetting Supreme Court nominees through
Dobson.
Boo hoo, Reason mentioned some Republican hypocrisy. Apparently you
think this is unfair. If it upsets you so much, maybe you shouldn't
spend every waking hour here.
bill|5.3.07 @ 12:54PM|#
I don't despise these people for using an escort service. Prostitution should be legal. I despise them for being so stupid as to leave a trail that can identify them. Hello, use a pay phone, a fake name and pay in cash you morons!
|5.3.07 @ 12:55PM|#
"In a perfect world, the list would include a bunch of
Libertarians."
Would a libertarian be a hypocrite for *failing* to hire a
prostitute?
"When your political party presents itself as the moral superior to
its opposition, expect a certain amount of glee when your prominent
members are caught with their prominent members out."
I think *both* members of the two-party cartel present themselves
as morally superior. The flip side of this is the mutual
accusations of hypocrisy. I suppose both sides are right.
As post-modern Pharisees, our best bet, if we want to proclaim our
moral superiority, is to say, "at least I'm not a *hypocrite* like
*them!*"
Frank had a scandal some years back when his boyfriend was running
a prostitution business. But at least Frank wasn't a hypocrite,
right?
|5.3.07 @ 12:55PM|#
The term "massage" has been irreparably tied to prostitution. I recommend that everyone choose to partake in something a bit more reputable, like oriental acupressure.
Jennifer|5.3.07 @ 12:57PM|#
The point is that everyone on both sides love to get up on
the moral bandwagon if it benefits them politically. The same
Democrats who will join the lynch mob to run some Republican out of
town for frequenting a prostitute will freequent them themselves
and think nothing of it.
I don't think anybody here is claiming that hypocrisy is the
exclusive province of Republicans, John. But overall, the
Republicans do seem to be more likely to vocally criticize the
same sins in which they indulge. Bill Clinton cheated on his
wife. Newt Gingrich also cheated on his wife, whilst loudly
proclaiming that Clinton's adultery was a travesty.
By way of analogy: Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to
give anti-marijuana speeches, but Republicans are more likely to be
stoned while they give them.
|5.3.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Yes. Let us be clear. My bihousal poxery is not based on each
party being equally vile in the exact same way. Their basic
corruption and disregard for things outside of the Beltway are
similar, true, but their other vices can be quite different. I do
think the differences tend to wash out at the local level
somewhat--for instance, a Democrat in a religious town is unlikely
to be an atheist--but they do exist, nonetheless.
For me, it's the general corruption, abuse of power, and hypocrisy
that make me despise all of them at, more or less, the same level.
Each party has its virtues and its virtuous, too, but those are the
exceptions, not the rule. I suppose I resent the Democrats' appeal
to victimhood a bit more than the negative GOP traits, but ask me
that after some GOP jackass has attempted to attack science with
his bizarre and arrogant believe that he speaks unerringly for
God.
|5.3.07 @ 1:10PM|#
"I think *both* members of the two-party cartel present
themselves as morally superior."
Yes, but the Republicans proclaim their moral superiority
specifically for their positions on issues related to sex,
promiscuity, and family values. A guy who gets caught with a
prositute isn't hypocritical for having celebrated his superior
moral position on aiding the poor and opposing war. A guy who gets
caught with a prostitute is a hypocrite for having celebrated his
superior moral position on abstinence, marriage, and porn.
"Frank had a scandal some years back when his boyfriend was running
a prostitution business. But at least Frank wasn't a hypocrite,
right?"
1. Barney Frank didn't know about the prostitution, whereas Elias
did.
2. Barney Frank has never presented his private life and his
positions on sex-related political issues as evidence of his moral
superiority.
So, no, Barney Frank is not a hypocrite.
|5.3.07 @ 1:26PM|#
I have no brief for Tobias and his Clintonisms, but let's keep
some perspective on this whole "who's the worst hypocrite" contest.
I mean, if I wanted to minimize Republican hypocrisy (which I
don't), I could say something like this:
As I understand the policy Tobias was enforcing, he wanted to make
sure that foreign-aid money (i.e., taxpayer money) wasn't used to
subsidize programs which are "value-neutral" on prostitution. You
can say he was a hypocrite by using his salary - public funds - to
pay a "masseuse." A key difference is that the salaries of public
officials are considered the personal property of the officials -
the government's interest ceases after it cuts the check. With
foreign aid, there's *supposed* to be monitoring after the check is
cut, to make sure the money is spent properly. Thus, while the
public generally has no business how a government spends his salary
during his off-hours, the taxpapers have an interest in seeng that
when their money is given to foreigners for certain purposes, the
money gets spent in accordance with those purposes - otherwise the
taxpayers are simply being robbed.
See how easy this is? Now let's try this on the Democrats. They're
big on government schools as being the salvation of children - and
they want government schools to be racially integrated. Yet they
don't seem to carry this principle into effect with *their* kids -
because they know that it would be bad parenting to expose their
children to the consequences of their own policies. So they
hypocrically prefer their children to their principles by sending
their kids to private schools (which often have a bigger white
population than government schools). This applies to Democratic
teachers in government schools, too. You may object that education
issues aren't about sex, but without sex, you wouldn't have kids to
educate.
However, I can play this game both ways, depending on the needs of
the moment. I can argue that Dems are more hypocritical than Rep,
or vice-versa.
I think this is called meta-hypocrisy.
|5.3.07 @ 1:28PM|#
"For me, it's the general corruption, abuse of power, and
hypocrisy that make me despise all of them at, more or less, the
same level. Each party has its virtues and its virtuous, too, but
those are the exceptions, not the rule. I suppose I resent the
Democrats' appeal to victimhood a bit more than the negative GOP
traits, but ask me that after some GOP jackass has attempted to
attack science with his bizarre and arrogant believe that he speaks
unerringly for God."
You are exactly right. The general rule the political class of any
stripe is that rules are for the peasents not for thee. Of course
Republicans who had a fit about Clinton being filanderer were
hypocrites. That doesn't make them any less right to point out the
hypocrisy of people crying foul after Clinton was sued for the very
same sexual harrassment laws they helped to pass. A average person
who is sued for sexual harrassment has no privacy and has to open
up his entire sex life to deposition to determine if there was
desparate treatment and if he lies about having an affair with one
of his subordinates, he is a perjurer. Bill Clinton, not so much.
Why? Becuase he is one of us and the rules shouldn't apply to him.
That is the nature of the political class. If you think that
someone is immune from that syndrome because they have an R or a D
next to their names you are either stupid or a hypocrite
yourself.
|5.3.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Max,
There is nothing hypocritical about Democrats sending their kids to
public schools. You just don't understand that they are better than
the people who go to public schools and their enlightened efforts
to help public schools by keeping children out of private schools
does not change the fact that they and their children are better
and more deserving of an education than kids whose parents can't
afford private schools.
You need to be more in touch with your inner elitist.
|5.3.07 @ 1:35PM|#
"...but Republicans are more likely to be
stoned while they give them."
Really? I wouldn't have thought so.
I once heard a joke (probably here at H&R) that went something
like "Libertarians are just Democrats who own guns or Republicans
who smoke pot." That seemed plausible to me at the time as it
incorporated a broad spectrum of rights - liberties, that is - into
Libertarian philosophy (if such a thing actually exists). Perhaps
not?
ed|5.3.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Wasn't "Brownie" fired after Katrina? Rumsfeld "retired" but was fired. So it is possible to get canned in this administration.
|5.3.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Of course there have never been any incompetant cabinet members held onto in other administrations. Never. Janet Reno took responsibility for burning those people in Waco but became the longest serving AG in history. Hazel O'Leary was probably the most corrupt cabinet member since the Nixon Administration, but was never asked to leave. No one is really quite sure what if anything Donna Shalala did other than collect a salary for 8 years.
dhex|5.3.07 @ 1:51PM|#
at least we're getting some entertainment value for our dollar
now, eh?
or for their dollar i guess...which in many cases is still actually
our dollar because we paid their salaries.
so is it too jaded to say "scratch a moralist, find a perv" ?
|5.3.07 @ 1:55PM|#
How rich that Hannity sits there and snipes that "the media"
(which he, of course, is not a part of) just want ratings from this
story. So why wasn't that 7 minutes of his show devoted to some
other, more newsworth story? You saw the same thing with Anna
Nicole Smith.
That Hugh Hewitt is awfully reptilian in both manner and
appearance. I love how he slithered away from the questions by
simply repeating ad nauseum that ABC is biased and YOU BETCHA there
wouldn't be any Dem or ABC names on that supposed list.
And neither of them would even begin to entertain the question of
Tobias' hypocricy. Toads.
|5.3.07 @ 1:58PM|#
Yes, let us all come together and join on this one point: Sean Hannity is an ass.
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 2:07PM|#
"an ill-considered and horribly executed war resulting in the
death of 3,300 U.S. troops?"
Yes, if only that great champion of liberty Saddam Hussein was
still in power. 25 million Iraqis would have been freed from the
need to exercise free speech, form hundreds of independent media,
and hold daily protests.
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 2:10PM|#
"offset the niggling truth that you yourself [Wolfowitz] have
some serious problems with corruption"
No, he doesn't. He disclosed the relationship up front, and the
entire matter was reviewed and approved by the ethics board.
Sort of ironic to see "libertarians" joining the witch hunt against
the man who did the most to try to bring Iraqis some measure of
liberty. Oh well, Tom Paine died despised and alone too.
|5.3.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Yes, if only that great champion of liberty Saddam Hussein
was still in power.
Creating blatant strawmen is a good way to assure you won't be
taken seriously.
Oh well, Tom Paine died despised and alone too.
Comparing Paul Wolfowitz (who said the war would pay for itself and
didn't keep track of troop deaths) to Tom Paine (who said, "He who
is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and
opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.") is an even better way
to not be taken seriously.
Jennifer|5.3.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Of course there have never been any incompetant cabinet
members held onto in other administrations. Never. Janet Reno took
responsibility for burning those people in Waco but became the
longest serving AG in history.
Calm thyself, John. Nobody here is saying Democrats are angels. Why
is it so hard for you to simply say "Yes, this Republican did
something scummy" instead of having to lash out "But--but--there
have been scumbag Democrats too!" Is partisanship that
important to you?
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Les:
Sarcasm != strawman. Not knowing one from the other is a great way
to look like a genius (see, that wasn't a strawman either).
Tom Paine also said:
"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny,
but the tyrant, stand forth!"
and
"Oh ye that loves liberty, loves man. For God made man free, but
kings, tyrants, and dictators would reduce the divine in man to the
slave of the earth. Hunt the oppressor of man no matter what corner
of the world he inhabit, for the tyrant must be eviscerated and
entombed, not entreated and entertained. And so therefore stand
ready to support the free-man, no matter where he arise, or in what
guise, for he is your brother at arms no matter his home or hsi
aspect. The day of the closely guarded Citadel of Freedom is over
and dead. It is now the duty and mission of every free man, no
matter his station, to remember his fundamental duty in this world
- to free it. And such freedom can only be spread with the zeal of
the missionary, for liberty cannot be nursed and warded by standing
along the watchtowers of the frontier - the frontier is what we
must now conquer, the unknown and the impossible is what we must
now tame. With liberty there are no borders, and in the future we
will realize for all men what now we only speak. Be free men for
all men in all times and all places, or be slaves of yourselves in
the small pits of the world"
|5.3.07 @ 2:52PM|#
If Tobias is trying to ban prositution and seeing one on the
side, then he is a jerk. Of course, high end hookers and trophy
wives in DC is not quite the same thing as third world prostitution
in places like Thailand. I think that there ought to be something
done about international trafficing in women.
Any Dem on this list who is married and not willing to support the
legalization of prostitution is a hypocrite to. Just as much or
more than Tobias. I seriously doubt Reason will bother to point
that out.
|5.3.07 @ 2:58PM|#
TallDave,
Oh, it's a Paine-off, is it???
No, let's not subject the readers to that (though you found a good
one, I'll admit; when do we go after all the other tyrants and will
those actions be as competently executed as the ones in
Iraq?).
But seriously, regarding Hussein, there are any number of people -
conservative, Republican, military types, even - who would point
out that there were many options in dealing with him that didn't
involve dishonesty and an incompetent, destabilizing
occupation.
And really, Thomas Paine and Paul Wolfowitz? Now, THAT's sarcasm,
baby!
Jennifer|5.3.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Any Dem on this list who is married and not willing to
support the legalization of prostitution is a hypocrite to. Just as
much or more than Tobias. I seriously doubt Reason will bother to
point that out.
Reason doesn't need to; whenever it runs a "Republicans behaving
badly" story you're in the front row screeching "BUT DEMOCRATS ARE
SCUMMY TOO!" with the tone of a man who thinks he has an actual
point to make.
Damn. You really aren't capable of simply admitting a
Republican's being a scumbag, are you? You're got to bring up a
similarly sleazy Dem in hopes of scoring a partisan point.
|5.3.07 @ 3:21PM|#
I recall, Central Park in fall. No, wait, I recall that
Reason beat up the Democrats quite regularly and with
quite a bit of scorn back when they were calling the shots
in the White House. If they take control of the White House and
strengthen their hold on Congress, look for the Democrats to get
all of the bad press around here. Until that time, the guys in the
captain's chair will get the heat.
James Bovard did/does the same thing, incidentally.
|5.3.07 @ 3:23PM|#
TallDave,
Did Paine make these statements in support of the American
Revolution, or the French?
If you think Paine is an authority, consider the "isolationist"
sentiments he uttered in his pamphlet *Common Sense,* where he
argued that independence would keep America free from England's
European quarrels:
"Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defiance?
Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us
the peace and friendship of all Europe; because it is the interest
of all Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will always be
a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from
invaders."
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense4.htm
I suppose Paine meant to add - "Peace with Europe will give us a
wonderful opportunity to democratize the Ottoman Empire - replacing
the tyrannical Sultan with several independent republics whose
people will love us."
The cause of Paine's dying alone, according to what I've heard, had
something to do with his vitriolic public attacks on Christianity.
What attacks on Christianity has Wolfowitz published?
(By the way, Paine had unpleasant things to say about Jews, too -
at least the Jews of the Old Testament era.)
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Les,
Yeah, options like "Hey! Maybe Saddam will embrace liberal
democracy!" Please. And yes, it was so dishonest to repeat the
consensus pf the world's intel agencies.
No war is perfectly planned. In WW II, we sent hundreds obsolete
torpedo bombers to die in hopeless, futile bombing runs, sent
thousands of Marines to needless deaths in frontal assaults on
fortified Jap positions, and didn't even plan for hedgerows in
Europe.
Yes, Wolfowitz is our modern Paine, a true idealist and lover of
liberty despised by lesser men who make excuses for leaving tyrants
in power.
|5.3.07 @ 3:32PM|#
"Yes, Wolfowitz is our modern Paine, a true idealist and lover
of liberty despised by lesser men who make excuses for leaving
tyrants in power."
He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and
acquainted with criticism in the MSM. He was brought as a lamb to
the slaughter, and he opened not his mouth except when there was a
TV camera present.
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Mad Max,
Sure, Paine very reasonably wanted us to avoid becoming embroiled
in the interminable European wars that were generally over things
like claim to territory or what one king said about another's wife.
He supported wars for freeing people.
Again:
"It is now the duty and mission of every free man, no matter his
station, to remember his fundamental duty in this world - to free
it. And such freedom can only be spread with the zeal of the
missionary, for liberty cannot be nursed and warded by standing
along the watchtowers of the frontier - the frontier is what we
must now conquer"
He's not talking about America or France per se, he's talking about
humanity.
Paine's attacks on religion were only one reason he died with only
6 mourners. Advocating the freeing of slaves (2 of the 6 were black
freedmen) and other positions also made him unpopular.
|5.3.07 @ 3:39PM|#
TallDave,
I'm still not sure whether you're quoting Paine from his American
phase or from his French phase. Paine saw the French Revolution as
the harbinger of a new democratic era for Europe, and he
contemptuously dismissed the concerns of those like Burke who said
that the Revolution would end in disaster. In fact, the Revolution
*did* end in disaster, if you count dictatorship and devastating
wars as disasters.
Maybe Paine was right the first time - when he advocated American
nonintervention.
|5.3.07 @ 3:40PM|#
What a waste of time and money... how many tax dollars are going
to be wasted on CYA activities now... I couldn't care less who
these people slept with or how much they paid for it... the fact
that prostitution is STILL rampant is indicative of a broken and
useless law.
Free the Pussy.
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 3:44PM|#
"Maybe Paine was right the first time - when he advocated
American nonintervention."
Yeah, then we could have avoided those 500,000 deaths in the
1940s.
I would miss France, though.
|5.3.07 @ 3:49PM|#
I'm *still* interested in knowing if that "liberty has no borders" quote from Paine is from the time he was in America, or from the time he was in France (serving in the French National Assembly for a time). Also, was Paine's eloquent advocacy in support of American intervention in a foreign war?
|5.3.07 @ 3:50PM|#
TalLDave,
I'm confused - you're citing Paine as an authority - a visionary
worthy of comparison with the great Wolfowitz himself - yet you
don't seem to like *me* citing Paine. Has Paine suddenly lost his
authorative, prophetic voice when he says something you don't
like?
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Oh, and liberal democracy in Japan.
"Paine saw the French Revolution as the harbinger of a new
democratic era for Europe"
True, and that nearly killed him, but ultimately he was concerned
with not just Europe and America, but mankind.
|5.3.07 @ 3:53PM|#
"Yeah, then we could have avoided those 500,000 deaths in the
1940s."
Is that a Godwin violation? Let's consult our distinguished panel
of judges . . . yes, Godwin! Everyone take a drink.
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Mad Max,
I don't mind you quoting him at all, you're just misinterpeting
him. He clearly wasn't against intervention per se, just
intervention that wasn't in defense of freedom.
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Mad Max,
Invoking Godwin doesn't change how incredibly stupid the idea we
shouldn't have intervened in the 1940s was. Sorry.
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Oh, and Godwin's purvey now apaprently extends to all mention of
anything in the 1940s, henceforth known as That Decade Which Shall
Not Be Named.
I will order the expungement of the offending ten years from
textbooks immediately.
|5.3.07 @ 3:59PM|#
TallDave,
Now it's Godwin *and* straw-man!
We entered World War II based on what we saw as our national
interest, not because of some "with liberty there are no borders"
kumbayah claptrap.
|5.3.07 @ 4:00PM|#
TallDave,
See, I know you mean it as sarcasm, but since zero people have
said, "Maybe Saddam will embrace liberal democracy," it's utterly
useless as part of a rational argument.
And yes, it was so dishonest to repeat the consensus pf the
world's intel agencies.
It wasn't the consensus that there was "no doubt" that Hussein had
WMD's. The international consensus was "maybe he does, let's keep
looking." It wasn't the consensus that those aluminum tubes could
"only" be used for nuclear purposes, as Condi stated after
she'd received reports to the contrary.
WW2 was over in less than four years, which is how long ago we were
told that combat operations in Iraq were over. It's a terrible,
terrible analogy.
Yes, Wolfowitz is our modern Paine, a true idealist and lover
of liberty despised by lesser men who make excuses for leaving
tyrants in power.
To suggest that a man who was a friendly ambassador to Indonesia
while Suharto was president is a "lover of liberty" is to admit to
some ignorance of recent history.
But being an idealist and loving liberty isn't enough (what are
you, some kind of hippie?). You have to be competent and man enough
to take responsibility for your fuck-ups.
He said the Iraq war would pay for itself.
He said that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction "and soon"
(over 4 years ago).
He said that the occupation could be done by less than 100,000
troops.
Over a year into the war, he didn't know how many U.S. casualties
there had been.
So if you want to put someone like Wolfowitz up there with Paine,
it's a free country. I prefer to hold my heroes to somewhat higher
standards.
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 4:04PM|#
"Maybe Saddam will embrace liberal democracy," it's utterly
useless as part of a
rational argument.
It's quite useful in pointing out what Saddam was like, and how
terrible an idea leaving him in power is.
WW2 was over in less than four years, which is how long ago we
were told that combat operations in Iraq were over.
You mean "major combat operations in WW II" were over. The
occupation STILL hasn't ended, last I checked.
To suggest that a man who was a friendly ambassador to
Indonesia while Suharto was president is a "lover of liberty" is to
admit to some ignorance of recent history.
Ignorance?
"JAKARTA, Indonesia -- At the height of President Suharto's
autocratic rule, then-U.S. Ambassador Paul D. Wolfowitz publicly
offered advice in 1989 that could have landed domestic critics in
prison, pointedly telling the dictator that his record of rapid
economic growth was not enough.
"If greater openness is a key to economic success, I believe there
is increasingly a need for openness in the political sphere as
well," Wolfowitz said in May 1989 farewell remarks at Jakarta's
American Cultural Center as he prepared to leave Indonesia after
three years as ambassador."
Indeed.
|5.3.07 @ 4:09PM|#
"[Paine] clearly wasn't against intervention per se, just
intervention that wasn't in defense of freedom."
In his French phase, when Paine was serving in the French National
assembly and writing pro-French polemics (except for that
unfortunate stint in prison when he came close to being guillotined
as a counter-revolutionary), he advocated war for the sake of
freedom, freedom being equated with the progress of the French
armies.
Then Napoleon became the dictator of France and the boss of much of
Europe, and it began to look like Paine's equation of freedom with
an aggressive, meddling French foreign policy seemed to look kind
of, you know, *wrong.*
That's why I said Paine was right the first time in *Common Sense*
when he hymned the praises of American neutrality.
|5.3.07 @ 4:11PM|#
TallDave,
I may just be an ignorant liberal who can't make change when
someone pays for a soy drink with an evil dollar bill down at the
co-op, but even I know that wanting to see something happen isn't
the same thing as supporting a long, expensive, bloody government
program that has a poor chance of succeeding.
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 4:11PM|#
That's why I said Paine was right the first time in *Common
Sense* when he hymned the praises of American
neutrality.
And as I pointed out, later events (careful! the Unnamable Decade
loometh nigh!) Paine was clearly more right when he advocated
actively intervening on behalf of freedom.
TallDave|5.3.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Oh no! I named it again!
Oh well.
Anyways, I could have sworn we deposed Saddam and they held some
sort of elections, and made a constitution or something.
|5.3.07 @ 4:16PM|#
TallDave,
And I'm glad you weren't advising Clinton in 1993.
"Eliminate AFDC? Why, you must want people to starve! Don't give me
that 'it isn't going to work' crap! There can be no other possible
reason."
|5.3.07 @ 4:18PM|#
"Anyways, I could have sworn we deposed Saddam and they held
some sort of elections, and made a constitution or
something."
And the country actually became more violent, less safe, and more a
threat to the rest of the world.
Nice trick, fellas. I didn't think it was possible. Never again
will I underestimate the capacity of neo-conservatism to change the
world.
|5.3.07 @ 4:18PM|#
TallDave,
I'm still interested in knowing the context in which Paine made the
quoted remarks about intervening in behalf of freedom. Since Paine,
in at least one major occasion, got it wrong in interpreting who
was pro-freedom.
|5.3.07 @ 4:23PM|#
If anyone needs me, I'll be in my bunk, making up a list of 100 things I want to do with Jennifer Pozner's hair before I die.
|5.3.07 @ 4:27PM|#
TallDave,
Suharto was every bit the evil dictator that Hussein was. He killed
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians during his rule. And
you're applauding Wolfowitz for telling him that he wasn't growing
his economy fast enough and that his brutal, atrocity-laden
dictatorship should be more politically open? And as he was leaving
his post?
Those are the actions of an amoral coward. If I didn't still think
you were ignorant about Suharto's murderous regime, I'd be forced
to think you were something else.
|5.3.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Who can forget the stirring passage in *The Crisis* when Paine
said:
"These are the times that try men's sou - no, not really, because
defeating England will be so easy! We just need to invade England
and reform their government to make it more democratic so that
people there will like us again. It'll be a cakewalk! Shouldn't
last long at all! They'll shower us with Cadbury chocolate bars and
those cute little scones! They won't even make fun of our accents!
The troops should be home by dinnertime!"
|5.3.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Little-known fact illustrating the similarities between Paine and Wolfowitz: When he was in France, Paine persuaded the Banque de France to hire his "housekeeper," Mademoiselle Claudette de Chaudfille, to a high-paying job in the Accounts Receivable department. He and Claudette had lots of safe sex.
|5.3.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Which kind of brings us back to the original topic of this thread - hookers! Well, not hookers as such, but at least sex.
Professor Nutbutter\'s House o|5.3.07 @ 5:07PM|#
Powerful men buy sex because it's a sure thing
pay the money, get your ashes hauled
better than the uncertainty of trying to seduce a woman for
cum-dumpster purposes
especially if you're one of our government's reptilian
functionaries
comely babes don't dig reptiles
|5.3.07 @ 5:36PM|#
Stevo Darkly,
It took about 100 posts for someone else besides myself to notice
that Jennifer Pozner honey. You must be Scottish!
|5.3.07 @ 6:42PM|#
This is not a Republican thing or a Democratic thing or Green or
Libertarian.
This is about the arrogance of powerful men who think they can
break the law, and call a phone number and order a woman like
pizza.
They think that they will be able to pull strings to hide their
crimes.
And given the current gossip, that ABC is only going to release 2
more names and a whitewashed report, they may be right. Maybe they
are above the law after all. Maybe ABC just doesn't have the spine
to do the right thing.
Guy Montag|5.3.07 @ 8:40PM|#
Could you possibly jam more fairbanksing into a whole post
Radley?
Christ! Just the Wolfowitz paragraph is worse than a New Republic
story, five Examiner stories, three days of Mr. Weigel and a week
of Ezera Klein!
Guy Montag|5.3.07 @ 8:42PM|#
I would have thrown in callinf APCs tanks, but you did that yeaterday better than a Nation article.
Frankenstein|5.4.07 @ 7:35AM|#
"Scarlett Letters" - now THERE'S a Freudian slip! [Insert photo of Scarlett Johannsen wearing minimal clothing, looking coy and vulnerable.]
|5.4.07 @ 5:23PM|#
This is about the arrogance of powerful men who think they
can break the law, and call a phone number and order a woman like
pizza.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with ordering a woman like you
would a pizza, so long as that woman has consented to be ordered
like one would a pizza. Same thing goes for men who choose to be
ordered as one would a pizza.
You're right that this isn't about a political party. It's about
hypocrisy and that's about all.
Guy Montag|5.7.07 @ 5:45AM|#
You're right that this isn't about a political party. It's
about hypocrisy and that's about all.
Of course, it must be limited to Republicans because they are the
only ones who can be hypocrites. Yea, right.
There was a Naval Officer in there, who was nout "outed" because
she could be courts martialed. Guessing she votes the proper way to
work as an escort without being hypocritical.
The "major Conservative Think Tank" guy who's story was leaked
without his name turned out to be a wrong number repeatedly
misdialed by the "Madame".
See the latest Washington Post story.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245