[kenberg]

I really have no idea why someone uses a prostitute. We all have our kinks I suppose, and there seems to be some hints in the stories that his kinks were of the sort some of the pros were not all that comfortable with, so maybe that's what was going on.

I'm not very keen on checking up on people's personal lives. Among other things, it sharply cuts down on the number of people who would be willing to take political office. I have never shot anyone or raped anyone and I don't use prostitutes (and wouldn't even if I had the spare 80K or so that he apparently spent on them). I don't tap my foot in men's rooms (and now that I know the significance I will make sure I don't do that). But I also don't want anyone going over my life with a magnifying glass and putting every stupid thing that I have ever done on the front page of the newspaper.

Using a prostitution ring is more than stupid of course, it is also, or so I understand, criminal. But at least for me, the stupid part stands out far more than the criminal part.

Arlen Specter was talking of many things on NPR yesterday and he was asked about Spitzer. He said he didn't condone the behavior but wasn't going to condemn him either. The country is desperately in need of this sort of restraint in how we treat each other.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Mar 14 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

But I also don't want anyone going over my life with a magnifying glass and putting every stupid thing that I have ever done on the front page of the newspaper.

Not many of us would want that, and certainly not I.

When it concerns consenting sexual activities (including those that are not stupid, in my opinion, even though professional eyebrow raisers might disapprove), nobody else has a right to know. Personally, I would not find a person interesting if he or she had never been curious enough to have enjoyed a rich sexual life.

The media loves to focus on this stuff because sex interests just about everyone, and most people have a voyeuristic streak, particularly the uptight. Sex sells, we know that.

When a politician has gained political points by taking harsh steps against folks who do the same sorts of things as the politician does, then I do consider the politician's fall to be "just desserts." The Spitzer case, like the Larry Craig case and many others, falls into that category.

[blackshoe]

I'm a libertarian. I don't think prostitution should be illegal. I don't care if someone hires a prostitute, anymore than I care whether he hires a personal trainer or a cook. As to kinks, I suspect there's a strong element of "let's throw this in the story, even though we have no basis in fact for it. It may up our market share" in those "hints".

Spitzer broke the law. He may have to answer for that to the legal system. He also broke, I presume, his marriage vows. That's nobody's business but his and his family's.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Congressmen in theory should be the smartest people who live the least morally objectionable lives.

Who cares? They are there to do their job, and if they do that well I'm happy. What they do in their private life is no one's business but their own (well if it's illegal, no one's business but their own and the DA's...)

[Al_U_Card]

For a "crime-fighter", aware of the methods used by criminals to cover their tracks, I would imagine that if he decided not to withdraw a few grand in cash from a subsidiary account then he must have felt "protected". (Unless they mark the cash in the machine/teller till, you can pay and go as you please...)

Mr. Spitzer may have fallen on a sword (so to speak) and we can only imagine why.

[luke warm]

i've never understood how a person could call himself a conservative (in the usa, i know the term means different things in different contexts) and still want to legislate morality (i.e. prostitution, etc)... a true conservative, it seems to me, would want the individual to have as much freedom as possible while still maintaining some semblance of social order...

as far as spitzer is concerned, there are a lot of issues involved... on a personal level, let he who is without sin etc etc... but on a public level i can recognize the problems... for those who say that a public person's private life has no bearing, we all know that isn't true... if it was true, he wouldn't have resigned... if it was true, a politician would run on a platform that included words to the effect of "i'll do a great job, the job for which you elect me, but you should know ahead of time - my private life is none of your business" ...

so at least tacitly a person who runs for office promises to, on some level, serve as the moral authority of those served... this becomes even more problematic when a person flat out runs as *the* moral candidate, promising to clean up whatever his pet 'corruption' is

[mycroft]

Welcome, Luke Warm, to the idea of a "social conservative".

Please note that I would vote Conservative (in Canada, it's a Party) if they were a) actually fiscally conservative, and not socially conservative (oh, and in my province, if they publicly denounced and vowed to avoid in future obvious ploys like "demolish a hospital, artificially exascerbating the already existing bed shortage, then renege on the promise to build new ones; build new 'regional health authorities' with all the responsibilities of running hospitals, but without the power to set a budget, then starve them of funds; thus prompting a 'grass-roots' cry for private health-care to deal with the 'crisis'").

But they're neither. Oh well.
Michael.

[mike777]

"i've never understood how a person could call himself a conservative (in the usa, i know the term means different things in different contexts) and still want to legislate morality (i.e. prostitution, etc)... a true conservative, it seems to me, would want the individual to have as much freedom as possible while still maintaining some semblance of social order..."


My take here is let's start with the end...maintain social order......

My guess is we are baised, in theory, towards the family unit. We make or try to enforce social or legal rules that strengthen the family. You can argue whether we should or how best we should do this but I think that is the goal of this stuff....

Also somewhere ,somehow children became sacred objects compared to anything else. All law starts with "protect the child"...
They used to get married, work, have babies and fight and die at very early ages, now....they move back in with mommy and daddy at old ages... All this education but they seem to be even less mature than 500 years ago...

[mike777]

mycroft, on Mar 17 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

Welcome, Luke Warm, to the idea of a "social conservative".

Please note that I would vote Conservative (in Canada, it's a Party) if they were a) actually fiscally conservative, and not socially conservative (oh, and in my province, if they publicly denounced and vowed to avoid in future obvious ploys like "demolish a hospital, artificially exascerbating the already existing bed shortage, then renege on the promise to build new ones; build new 'regional health authorities' with all the responsibilities of running hospitals, but without the power to set a budget, then starve them of funds; thus prompting a 'grass-roots' cry for private health-care to deal with the 'crisis'").

But they're neither.  Oh well.
Michael.

Why is government in the business of tearing down or building hospitals. Does Canada expect the govt to do this stuff?

If so nanny state gone wild.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Mar 17 2008, 10:12 PM, said:

My guess is we are baised, in theory, towards the family unit. We make or try to enforce social or legal rules that strengthen the family. You can argue whether we should or how best we should do this but I think that is the goal of this stuff....

Speak for yourself, breeder

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Mar 15 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

a true conservative, it seems to me, would want the individual to have as much freedom as possible while still maintaining some semblance of social order...

I thought the conservatives were the ones who would prevent people from
- smoking grass
- having sex (exemptions granted for married opposite-sex couples)
- having abortions
- traveling to Cuba
- burning their own copy of Stars and Stripes

Further, the current government prevents people from traveling by air if they have ever participated in a peace march.

I am sure some would argue that all of the above are threats to social order, but if "I am pro freedom" means "I am pro freedom except for all those activities that I dislike", then "I am pro freedom" becomes meaningless.

Here in Europe there are "conservatives" who want to prevent people from drawing certain cartoons, and from almost any activity that takes place on a Sunday (other than going to church). But of course "conservative" means something different on different continents.

Any freedoms the conservatives do grant?
- To own firearms
- Not to pay for someone else's health insurance