NY Governor Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby compared2what? » Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:14 pm

sunny wrote:I can't help but feel sorry for the girl. (She's the same age as my daughter) She's being raked over the coals by the late night comics and everyone else. I keep hearing her quote over and over in my head: "I just don't want to be thought of as a monster".

What was the point of outing this poor girl?


Newsstand sales, site traffic, and Nielsen ratings. (Simple answer series.)

Sunny, I feel the same. It's a little like the Ono/Lennon movie "Rape." I'm not claiming that voluntary sex work is the same as coerced sex. Just that sexual violation, with or without the complicity of the person violated, comes in many forms and differing degrees of extremity.

I don't like being implicated in it. But it sure doesn't always stop me from clicking, and I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rrapt » Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:24 pm

Yeh Barracuda, going after the monolines, he had to get slammed for that. Why else cross a powerful opponent?

It is all out in the open now: criminal govt backing banks at people's expense, all parties collaborating on blatantly false AAA ratings. No opposition will be tolerated; legal or not, means nothing now.
rrapt
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:27 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:37 pm

"Kristen": Might I remind you that she is a witness for the prosecution, and that she knew enough to have her song playing for the gawkers at her site yesterday? She may not be as much of a victim as you think, though the broad outlines of what you say about the prostitution industry are true. I'm thinking she may have hoped for this result, or that she's probably enjoying how it worked out, and may even be thinking of it as her revenge. But I don't know that.

Monolines: That would be a freight truck, wouldn't it?
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:00 pm

JackRiddler wrote:"Kristen": Might I remind you that she is a witness for the prosecution, and that she knew enough to have her song playing for the gawkers at her site yesterday? She may not be as much of a victim as you think, though the broad outlines of what you say about the prostitution industry are true. I'm thinking she may have hoped for this result, or that she's probably enjoying how it worked out, and may even be thinking of it as her revenge. But I don't know that.

Monolines: That would be a freight truck, wouldn't it?


In re: First line, first graph -- I don't know whom you're reminding, but clearly you might, since you have. I don't think anyone showed signs of forgetting.

In re: Last line, first graph -- I also don't know what she enjoys or hopes for, since I don't know her and I'm not psychic.

Is there some reason that her theoretical pleasure or theoretical sexualized revenge are worth writing about in imaginary detail, given that they are necessarily total fantasies in the absence of knowledge?

She's obviously not one of society's winners, assuming the biographical details available are true. And to some extent, she's one of its many victims, unusual only in getting a lot more attention than most in her position do. That much attention isn't even an unmixed blessing for the professionally famous, usually.

She's also a foxy chick. As far as I know, that doesn't in itself predispose her to enjoying either unnaturally massive amounts of attention, or revenge against perceived oppressors.

If she were a 22-year-old boy of equivalent background, her MySpace page would probably show different musical aspirations, etc. But whatever the differences, the parts would be of comparable worth, in all likelihood.

That's speculative, but based on what I see of 18 to 22 year olds in life and on MySpace.

ON EDIT:

JackR, please accept my apologies for the above catty insinuation. I shoulda counted to ten.

I'm leaving the original up as a reminder to myself to do so in the future.

But what I meant was:

I think that some insidious unexamined assumptions (to which we are all prone, since we all learned the same catechism on gender and sex), may be unconsciously influencing your attribution of whose motivations are driving the action here, as well as who has or had real power and of what kind.

I therefore am drawing the attention of your fine mind to that possibility.

Please feel free to ignore, if I'm mistaken.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:48 pm

Via a Glenn Greenwald link, a good discussion of some of the issues raised by compared2what? surrounding high priced escorts:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/03/ive_seen_my_share_of_spitzers.php
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:10 pm

A good discussion? On Pajamas Media? That's something too rare not to check out starting right now.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:05 am

That was a lively discussion, but if it seemed like it was related to issues I raised, I didn't make myself clear. And, glancing at what I wrote, I see that I didn't. My point was distorted because I didn't make it clear that "Rape" isn't explicitly about sexual violation; the title is metaphorical. It's about the potential boundary violation intrinsic to an age of (a) easy mechanical reproduction; (b) easy mass distribution of photographic images; and (c) given who made it, you'd have to assume, celebrity.

In other words, I was talking about the media attention being inappropriate, as well as approximately as sexist as it usually is even when concerned with less obviously sexual topics. I didn't mean to make any point about prostitution at all.

But fwiw, I think it should be legal and that there's no reason to stigmatize a woman who makes her living that way, per se. I personally have never known any sex worker who was, in my opinion, empowered rather than damaged by her work.

But I've known many who per their own explicit declarations would vigorously dispute my opinion, if I were rude enough to mention it to them, which I'm not. (And even if I were, there's no point in arguing with junkies and alcoholics, especially if your relationship to them is friendly as it stands.)

It would take some pretty comprehensive social adjustments before there was any stable middle-ground on which the pros of earning a living selling sexual services (high-dollar/low-hour employment) and the cons (kinda dehumanizing for the seller) cancelled each other out'. But I favor those changes in any event. Anyway. It's a limited form of slavery as presently organized. Even in a theoretical absolute best-case scenario, far cushier than anything I have first-hand experience or observation of, it strikes me as very close to the line in that regard. But abolition being ineffective, plus unduly repressive in other ways, legalization is the best realistic option.

But I didn't originally intend to comment on it, and my comments above are abridged for general-readership purposes. The mystification of female sexuality is so close to total it's not even visible for the most part. It could only lead to tears to seriously introduce a discussion of it to this thread, out of the blue.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:34 am

I guess I had hoped it would serve some small illumination on your point of "who has or had real power and of what kind."

As the author says,
if you are about to say that for a thousand bucks those girls must supply the best sex in history, then you really do not understand this world. Because it is not about sex; it is about power. And the simple act of ordering up an anonymously pretty 22 year-old girl to do your bidding in the salubrious confines of a luxury hotel suite is an act of power.


But I respect your commentary, and agree that in this context such discussion is rather off topic, and perhaps "could only lead to tears."
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:37 am

My bad, as you are completely correct that the remark about power was about Spitzer/escort, not press/escort.

I'm an idiot, and I apologize for being unable to grasp the meaning of my own posts. :oops:

On edit: Which is really only more shameful, because it's enough of a known dynamic to have an industry designation, at least if the sex work is gay or b&d: Topping from the bottom.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Not to let this one rip but....

Postby annie aronburg » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:20 am

sunny wrote:I keep hearing her quote over and over in my head: "I just don't want to be thought of as a monster".

What was the point of outing this poor girl?


Didn't some other lady get called a MONSTER!!! in the media a few days before all this happened?

I feel like They're throwing gang signs again....
"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
User avatar
annie aronburg
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Smokanagan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MASONIC PLOT » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:15 pm

This is making the rounds:

Spitzer Destroyed Over Of
Threat To Bush Cartel?
By Patrick Grimm
3-14-8


Here is more and very credible info on why the plug was pulled on Spitzer. Read his oped piece from the Feb. 14, Post and you can see that he was pointing the finger at the Bush crime syndicate. See the last paragraph. So it seems that Spitzer's true crime was stupidity -- how could he think that he would visit high-priced call girls and also attack the Bushinistas at the same time without being counterattacked? -- Jim
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers


(The following oped by Eliot Spitzer was published barely a month prior to the unfolding scandal and his demise as Governor of the State of New York. Does the scandal bear any relationship to Spitzer's intent to reveal the criminal nature of the subprime mortgage scam and the role of the Bush adminstration. Was the scandal intended to silence Eliot Spitzer?)

By New York Governor Eliot Spitzer
The Washington Post
Feb. 14, 2008
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.


Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.


But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.


Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers. [emphasis added]

The writer is governor of New York.
MASONIC PLOT
 

Postby nomo » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:08 pm

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/16579966.html
A costly date for Spitzer, but not so surprising, scientists say

By Faye Flam
Inquirer Staff Writer

Why would someone as rich and powerful as Eliot Spitzer put his family, his job and his promising future on the line for an alleged $4,000 date with a prostitute?

Is this pathological or inherent in human nature?

Scientists says it's more likely to be the latter. They attribute this kind of behavior to natural promiscuity combined with opportunity - along with a risk-taking personality common to men like Bill Clinton and John F Kennedy. It's what makes them seek office and what makes us want to vote for them.

Psychologist Christopher Ryan, author of "Sex in Prehistory," says the desire for sex with more than one person has always been there - for leaders and followers alike. "The desire is not a function of status or power - it's a question of availability."

What's relatively new to the human race, he said, is the ability to exercise power and the connection between power and sex.

That's because, for most of human existence, there was only so far a man could coerce others when food was essentially free and hard to hoard. And until relatively recently, sex with multiple partners was the norm. "It would have been very unusual 100,000 years ago for a person to have one sexual partner for 30 years," said Ryan in an interview from Barcelona.

We don't know this for sure, because prehistoric sexual behavior doesn't fossilize, but there's much we can infer from studying how people in foraging cultures live today, he said. Such cultures tend to be relatively egalitarian and promiscuous, at least by American standards, he said. But prostitution is rare, as he believes it was for most of our past.

"There would be no need for prostitutes because there would be very few sexually frustrated men," he said.

So in other words, if Spitzer had been born in 40,000 B.C., he would never have gotten into this fix.

While Ryan argues that men and women are both naturally promiscuous and power simply gives men the opportunity to follow that nature, psychiatrist Gabriela Cort takes a more open view of the human male. Alpha males - leaders - are often indeed full of pent-up sexual energy, but they don't always use it to get in trouble, said Cort, author of the upcoming book, "Leading Under Pressure."

"Some alpha males do whatever they want for their own purposes but others can be very loyal." Alpha males often have excess sexual energy, but instead of cheating or visiting high-priced call girls, she said, many channel it into other pursuits. "Some people create things - or do things for the public good."

Temple University psychologist Frank Farley suggests that while we're busy shaking our heads at Spitzer, we could stand to look back at ourselves and question why we vote for men like him. Risk-taking personalities are attracted to the uncertain world of politics, he said, and at the same time voters are attracted to them.

"We want our leaders to show some qualities of innovation," he said. "We want bold men willing to push their ideas."

We don't choose people riddled with anxieties to run our government or our corporations, though such people may act in a thoughtful, conscientious way. We loved John Kennedy for standing up to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

"We don't want shrinking violets in these kinds of roles," Farley said.

Along with that package you get personal risk-taking - the affairs, the dabbling in solicitation and sometimes other crimes. "It's hard to get rid of it in politics," he said.

The other question that left many of us puzzled: Why pay for it when a man like Spitzer could probably get women for free?

"Men such as those in Spitzer's position do not so much pay for women to have sex with them; they pay for women to go away AFTER having sex with them," said evolutionary psychologist David Buss of the University of Texas. "It's one strategy some men use for minimizing the costs, although obviously it did not work for Spitzer."
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:15 pm

Interesting article here, from the Times:

Toppling of the Luv Guv is ‘Wall Street revenge’
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Avalon » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:42 pm

"There would be no need for prostitutes because there would be very few sexually frustrated men," he said.

So in other words, if Spitzer had been born in 40,000 B.C., he would never have gotten into this fix.


Or maybe it might just have been because hunter/gatherers didn't tend to use a monetary system? Sheesh.

FWIW, Ashley and the other women seem to only have gotten half the retail fee they were charging their customers, the rest went to the pimps.

There's an enormous amount of speculation and projection about what his wife Silda may be feeling. We just don't know. We don't know what their sexual life is together, we don't know what their ground rules are about sex and love, or how they define what works best for their family.
Silda may not care where he puts his penis, but may be angry that he embarassed the family or upset their children. As a lawyer, she may be furious at his lack of ethics or integrity in practicing the craft of law.

It isn't our place, or the place of the press, to say what she is feeling.
User avatar
Avalon
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Avalon » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:57 pm

Is it something in the water? Why hasn't Hugh told us that this is all to confuse us when the Spitzer Space Telescope sights Nibiru hurtling toward us? A fuck fuck here, and a fuck fuck there, here a fuck there a fuck everywhere a fuck fuck...

Explosive new claims regarding former New Jersey governor McGreevey surface.

'Ex New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey had threesome with wife and driver'By Tom Leonard in New York


A former governor of New Jersey and his wife used to indulge in a weekly threesome with their chauffeur, it was claimed yesterday.

Less than a week after Eliot Spitzer resigned as New York state governor amid revelations he patronised an expensive prostitution service, the usually staid world of US state government has been shaken by allegations of another sex scandal.

Teddy Pedersen claimed that before Jim McGreevey became New Jersey's Democratic governor, he had sexual trysts with the politician and his now estranged wife, Dina Matos McGreevey. Despite her denials, the allegations were later repeated by Mr McGreevey himself.

etc etc

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... dal118.xml
User avatar
Avalon
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 178 guests