Saturday Morning News

Comments

1
No time for the War on Easter. I'm waging war on O'Reiley's religion one letter at a time. O'Reilly and his ilk are unts. Hmm, this letter war might be tougher than planned.
2
Stilll, 'spring egg hunts' is rather silly.
3
@2 No, rising from the dead is silly.
4
Under the assumption that talking is better than not talking, does anyone else feel icky about negotiating with the Taliban? I mean...in current parlance...who can trust them to shit?

And what will be the deal? We'll let you beat women and blow up their schools as long as you don't harbor terrorists?

I hate to sound so prejudicial, but I really don't hold out much hope for them to moderate their beliefs. I don't think very many have hope either. So, these "negotiations" are just for show, right?
5
@3: Be that as it may. One doesn't negate the other.
6
You guyz have got it all wrong. What's really giggle-inducing is Fox insisting that we cling to the "Easter bunny" and "Easter eggs" as untouchable reminders of our universal religion.

Pagan bacchanals FTW!
7
You don't have to say "is facing accusations of allegedly raping"; that's hedging twice. He's not being accused of allegedly raping her, he's being accused of actually raping her. You can say either "is facing accusations of raping" or "allegedly raped," both hedge adequately.
8
7

oh don't be a nag

they don't pay Ben to think.

or write.

or wipe his ass.......
9
7, does that make the author a hedgehog?
11
@7

Good point. And in fact, the man was convicted of torture and rape, not convicted of alleged torture and rape. So there's hedging there, too.
12
@7 you sir, are correct. 5 a.m. comes very early for unpaid interns.
13
@12: 5 a.m.! That's appalling and abusive. At least wetbacks didn't have to start until 6 a.m. and they were paid!
14
The rape story of a domestic violence victim is too shocking to even fathom.
15
According to the article cited, the kerfuffle is over an Alabama middle school announcing a Spring Egg Hunt. Why anyone, anywhere, would consider this a subject worthy of more than a "huh" is beyond me.
16
@15: As long as you supportive of schools cancelling Halloween parties out of fear that Halloween costumes could offend or upset students of different cultures, then I applaud you on your consistency.
17
Here's a couple of ideas for the essay on the Dangers of Marijuana:

1. Marijuana attracts pepper spray
2. People who smoke marijuana are far more likely to be assaulted by police officers than non-smokers
3. Pets of people who smoke or grow marijuana are far more likely to be shot by SWAT teams
4. Talking about the real dangers marijuana dangerously increases the blood pressure of judges

Okay, expand on this and make it 5000 words. It sounds easy enough.
18
Oh, wow, dood, major bigtime scandal in Atlanta, in which those who have done the least against society (and may have done the most for) will be crucified, American style, with lengthy prison sentences and destroyed lives.

Meanwhile, what's happening with the ultra-crooks?

LIBOR lawsuits, the largest financial fraud perpetrated in human history, has been dismissed?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29…

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-30…

. . . and that banks are still the undisputed rulers of the land when U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald agreed to dismiss claims that the 16 banks targeted by various LIBOR lawsuits broke federal antitrust laws.

16 banks? Hmmmmm. . . . now when was the last time we heard something close to that number?

The Wall Street Seventeen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat….

In response to the last honest-to-God study of the corporate ownership concentration by banks, due to the TNEC study, or Temporary National Economic Committee (initiated during the FDR (Roosevelt) Administration), parts of it are still classified at the SEC to this very day.

Unfortunately, the lawsuit against the banksters rolled over into the Eisenhower administration (you know, that administration responsible for the design and planning for the Bay of Pigs fiasco) where it was dismissed also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_N…

And let's not forget the judge responsible for dismissing the LIBOR case:

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald

Not surprisingly, Buchwald also ruled in favor of Monsanto against organic farmers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Reice…

And this little gem from the Wiki entry:

In a 2008 civil case for insider trading, Judge Buchwald ordered[5] the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to unfreeze the ill-gotten profits of Ukrainian resident Oleksandr Dorozhko. Dorozhko was accused of hacking into a company database to access a then-unreleased earnings announcement. Based upon the undisclosed information, Dorozhko invested $41,671 in put options, which he sold the following day for $328,571. The SEC froze the profits, but the Judge ruled against the SEC, finding that while Dorozhko's conduct almost certainly was criminal, it did not fall within the relevant civil statute. Judge Buchwald stayed her order pending appeal.

In a highly deferential opinion,[6] the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Judge's ruling. When Dorozhko later stopped participating in his defense, Judge Buchwald granted the SEC summary judgement and ordered Dorozhko to pay nearly $580,000 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty.[7] It was later reported that the S.E.C. managed to seize about half of this amount.

http://abovethelaw.com/tag/judge-naomi-r…
19
sgt_doom needs your help, trollbots and chatbots!

Why? Because with sections extant in the most complete, and probably final (for that reason), "global free trade" act, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, declaring that US-based multinationals, and South Korean-based multinationals, may and can offshore jobs to slave labor camps in North Korea!

So why all this latest war-drum-beating in North Korea and the USA?

Part Deux

sgt_doom needs your help, trollbots and chatbots!

Recently, former NSA super-stooge, Gen. Hayden, gave a speech (can be found on Youtube) strongly advising that sanctions be levied against China?

Why? The multinationals which pay Hayden's salary and perks at that private intel contractor would be negatively impacted, and none of them have stopped doing what they've been doing for ages: offshoring jobs, technology, investments and military tech to China?

We must ask the obvious questions in response to the daily barrage of corporate media nonsense from their newsy whorescum!
20
@4

The answer to "what will be the deal" with the Taliban is basically the same as "what will be the deal" with our own religious extremists.

In other words, there's too many of them to simply kill them all, they're not about to change their minds about anything, and "ignore it and it will go away" has been tried, and failed.

The rationale behind talking to them would be that they get to keep you and your fancy big-city ideas out of their repressive little communities, and you get to keep them contained within those communities.
21
@20 While they send bicycle bombs to office buildings? Islamist extremists won't be satisfied until the entire country is Sharia. Look what happened in Egypt. They are slowly crushing freedom. But it will fail them the way all theocracies fail. They just are not practical and exclude half the population from reaching it's potential.
22
15, that's just stupid. I'm talking about a specific incident, and you, like Fox News, are trying to turn it into some nebulous, "universal" concept. For what purpose? To prove how smug & superior you are? We all know you feel that way. Holidays reflect the values of the people that celebrate them. What's your problem w/ that?
23
@22 Are you talking to yourself?
24
Regarding the Tacoma dungeonmaster: if we agree that victimless crimes aren't crimes and consenting adults should be able to barter sex for money, then we should be careful not to pick up pitchforks with the anti-CSW crowd.

She agreed to be bound, blindfolded, and taken to his home where she would be tied up and have things inserted into her. I have no idea if they agreed upon a time duration, but it was a colossally stupid agreement for either of them to enter into, prone to physical risks for her and legal risks for him.

(1) So if it was "x things in my pussy for y minutes," the fundamental disagreement was that she says she thought x was a dildo (I guess?) and y was some "reasonable" amount of time. Instead x was his penis and, what, a TENS unit? And y was all night.

(2) “You know, Mr. Hauff, if you had done what you did to this woman to a dog, I can tell you this community would be outraged.” Who cares? If he had even so much as stuck his penis in the dog, the community would rightly be outraged. Because animals can't give consent. People can, and in this case someone did, for something about which opinions now differ.

(3) “I’m just glad the judge saw how absolutely horrifying it was to have no way to get out ... and to be completely at the mercy of a psychopath." Lady, you agreed to be completely at the mercy of the psychopath. You.

I'm not saying the guy didn't go too far, and that he doesn't deserve time. She didn't agree to sexual intercourse, so this makes him a rapist. But some of the hand wringing seems a little over the top and not in line w/ the generally CSW-friendly attitude around here.
25
@21

Maybe the religious extremists are doomed to fail, like you say. But they don't seem to be in any hurry to go away, do they?

We've got our own religious fundamentalist bombers and assassins right here in America, but we haven't stopped talking to the various representatives of their peculiar little sects.
26
Ps- if it were a pretty yuppie girl into BDSM misusing a capital hill rentboy, people (and more importantly the judge) would be discussing it differently. The fact that it's Uncle Fester from Tacoma and a young Aurora methhead affects the narrative.
27
@22: I don't have a problem with that. But you seem to on the train that all culture should be sanitized (e.g. 'Easter egg hut' becomes 'Spring egg hunt') so that nobody is offended. To me, that makes a drab society whether or not one is a Christian.
28
Big Sven, you make some good points. And this is one of the reasons prostitution should never be legalized, as it opens up this depraved evil stream unabated in our red light districts.

@25: I dare say there are a helluva lot more Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban operatives around the world than remnants of Klansman, neo-Nazi skinheads lurking in North America. I suggest taking care of the bigger problems first.
29
Gay Dude for Raindrop - Regarding your comment @16, if you cannot see the difference between Easter and Christmas parties (read: one specific religion, Christianity) and Halloween parties (read: no specific religion), then you are even more stoopid than your comments make you appear to be. This is about you and your ilk not shoving your specific, fucking religion down everyone one else's throats, nothing more.
30
@28

Am I to assume, then, that you are also implying that it ought to be America that takes it upon itself to cleanse the planet of Muslim extremists, no matter which nations they might inhabit?
31
The problem is their wipe out the infidels orthodoxy. You put that with the power of a government and you get a nuclear armed state that is determined to destroy all enemies.
32
@31

Ah yes, but that is precisely why I suggested one might want to engage in talks— because The Taliban is not a government, and some would prefer to do whatever it takes keep it that way.
33
@30: No, I am not implying your leaping to such a conclusion as in "cleansing the plant", no, I refer to diplomacy, you know, like the things your good friends Hillary, and now John are doing.
34
@29: Be cautions of Easter bunnies shoving eggs down your throat. Especially the ones on the White House lawn tomorrow morning.
35
@33

So then, you wouldn't object to the idea of America cleaning up the abortion clinic bombers and doctor shooters in its own back yard, while we're leaving the Islam-zealot extermination to other governments?
36
26,

I disagree with you, and I agree with Yu.

1) Taking advantage of someone's else's medical condition for your own personal sexual arousal is inherently evil. If I got off on watching people experience shock and fed sugar to a diabetic, I'd rightfully be jailed for attempted murder. Why should someone exploiting an addict be any different?

2) I am CSW friendly, but I am not John friendly. I favor legalizing prostitution because I feel it unethical to kick somebody when they're down by slapping them with a jail sentence after they've had to sell their body just to get enough to survive in a sick society where money is the determinant of a person's worth. That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of taking advantage of desperate people. In fact, people like this rapist and attitudes like the one you proffer are exactly the ones I oppose the most of all.

I'm told my prolix annoys many readers, so I will end my post here, although there is more to be said if you care to rebut.
37
@35: That a strange juxtaposition of another issue you're tossing in, against an assumption in your second clause that does not make sense. Sorry, but I can't answer a question that I don't understand.
38
@37

I didn't think that bombings motivated by fundamentalist religion would seem all that weird when juxtaposed against bombings motivated by fundamentalist religion, but I guess you're just a unique snowflake that way, and I should respect your worldview.

39
@36

Prolix away! I don't get annoyed, I just think it's a waste of your time. Please don't take that the wrong way, whenever I read Slog I'm often inspired to become extremely judgmental, I want to be part of the gang.
40
@36: I believe in treating people like grownups, so if two people want to trade a dimebag for a high quality blowjob, that's their right and not the state's business. There are many ways to help poor women without locking up another segment of society for a victimless crime.
41
My new Facebook photo:

http://www.paulinepark.com/wp-content/up…

It symbolizes man's inhumanity to man..so some dumb crap like that.
42
@24,

Are you fucking kidding me? Did you read the article? That woman is lucky to be alive.
43
40,

In this particular case, there is a clear victim. The CSW.
44
@36, 43,

Are you sure you annoy "many" readers, or just 'dnt trust me'? I've never heard anyone but him complain and I would hope you'd not curtail anything based on his take. I typically enjoy reading your posts and if I don't feel like doing so, I simply don't expand them to expose the entire thing (maybe the mobile app auto-expands all comments? Even if so, it's surely worth scrolling through it/them to have the opportunity to read an interesting and informed take on matters. My $.02 anyway.)
45
44,

If concision be the soul of god, then my atheism becomes ever more apparent by the hour. Thank you for kindly sparing moments of your attention upon my ramblings.

Whatever I might be accused of-whether it be prolix, being dead wrong, or in need of a copy-editor-I am at least sincere.

And if this commenter has offended
Think just this and all is mended
That you have only lingered here
While my prolix did appear.
And these weak and idle things
No more relevant than a screed.
Kindly do not reprehend
and if you'll pardon, I shall bend,
as I am an honest fuck.
If I have abused my luck
now to escape the fascist scum
I will come to an end before too long
or else this fuck a liar you will call.
So, goodnight to you and all.
Give me your reply, if we are friends
And I to you will make amends.
46
TT, when Paul Constant's position becomes vacant, I'd be grateful if you'd apply, just for the heck of it if anything else. You're writing outshines PCs, more straightforward and more eloquent, may as well get paid, no?
47
Two wrongs don't make a right, but I deal with almost constant harassment from people in a community that is highly multiethnic. These people get away with offhand comments and remarks that would cause a scandal if the tables were turned.

Once again I have to point to the obvious injustice of Imus losing a job for six months versus Seth MacFarland and the Onion using foul statements against a young girl of color and having the whole national liberal establishment ignore it completely.

48
@38: If you are to be consistent about domestic bombings in comparison to international terrorism, in addition to bombing abortion clinics you should also include PETA and ELF bombings and their property destruction as well. To be intellectually honest, you'd have to agree with that.
49
#36

1. Yes, this is where the word rape..an assault on a defenseless victim, has true meaning.

2. Prostitution and pornography have their greatest harms on men because they play on our needs but substitute the fake for the real. They should be highly restricted if not banned. And perps should be jailed with very severe penalties.
50
Interesting statement about consent from Wiki:


Consent need not be expressed, and may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties, but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent.

Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim (such as persons who are asleep, intoxicated or otherwise mentally helpless)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Consen…

The statement about context is intriguing...say in relationship to what could be read as a booty call.
51
49,

Being gay, I find your analysis bizarre. Which man does it have the hard effect on? The guy consuming the porn or the guy posing for it? The guy turning tricks or the guy who is the trick being turned?

Porn harms nobody, unless it's CP, when it harms the child. Prostitution is a byproduct of capitalism. In a sense, we're all prostitutes. Our work does not serve ourselves, it serves someone else. We trade the hours and minutes of our lives for money. But the time it costs us is worth more than the money ever could be. We're all abused by those we sell our labor to, and we all get blamed for "corrupting" the people who exploit us.

That's true if you're a writer, a programmer, a scientist, a cook, or a cleaner.

So no, I don't agree with you at all. I find your theory to be inaccurate, cold, not generalizable, and driven by ideology. Please do not make the mistake of associating my views with your own. We have nothing in common, and for that I am grateful.

46,

You are too kind. In fact, you're every kind.
52
So the War on Easter is part of the war on Judeo-Christian beliefs? This Judeo thinks that's hilarious.
53
@47, if you think the Liberal Establishment ignored McFarland's horrible little joke and the Onion's equally horrible little article about the little girl, you obviously haven't been reading the LE's writings. Not surprising though; Fox News tends to kill synaptic ability.
54
47,

In America, we break everything down to a dichotomy. there are liberals on the Left, and conservatives on the Right. Our world has only one dimension to it-the only possible shape is the line we must position ourselves somewhere along.

In other parts of the world, politics is multilateral. There are liberals, socialists, conservatives, christian democrats, anarchists, monarchists, nationalists... In such places, a linear concept of the polity is absurd. Take Canada, for example. The Conservative party is neoliberal, the Liberal party is classical liberal, the NDP is socialist, the Bloc is nationalist, and the Greens are, well, the Greens. In Australia, liberals, socialists, conservatives, greens and nationalists vie with one another for power. Their universe is not a line, but more of an octagon.

The "liberal establishment"? Properly defined, the liberals are the Wall Street people, not the Occupy Wall Street people. Fox News is closer to liberalism than it is to conservationism. Conservatives are the ones who favor the nobility, not the merchants who are represented by liberals.

Do you have any fucking idea what the word liberal even means? Or the word conservative? Or the word socialist? Have you ever bothered to look it up, and find out what these words are that you're all throwing around so willy-nilly? Mrs. Malaprop would be so proud of you. The very words you use are divorced from their definitions. I would say that you're obfuscating, using the language to misdirect. But someone like that would at least have enough respect for the language and the concepts it describes to know what they mean.

Your "liberals" and "conservatives" would both be considered liberals by the larger world. One is classical liberal and the other neoliberal, but both are quite liberal. Liberalism is the idea that the less government there is, the better. Whether you feel that government should not control the market or an individual's marital choices, you are a liberal if you believe there is something that should go unregulated.

Learn the damn language.
55
@54: I thought libertarianism was the idea that the less government, the better.
56
Not outside the US.

In the UK, for example, the Liberal democrats are the party that embraces exactly the same platform outlined by the US Libertarian party. In Canada and Australia, the same is true, as well as the Philippines and Romania and everywhere else.

Classical liberalism is the idea that individual liberty is sacrosanct. This is why Nick Clegg can have legalization of Equal Marriage and an austerity budget in the same platform. If you subscribe to the ideology of John Stuart Mill, you are a liberal. Like free market capitalism? Liberal. In favor of a woman's right to choose? Liberal. The principle behind both? Less government the better. Is this something invented in America by Thomas Jefferson that never existed before? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Libe…

57
Liberal, libertine, libertarian. These words are synonyms. The root word is liber, Latin for free. If you believe that individual liberty is sacrosanct, you are a liberal.

Our country was founded in Liberalism. The Constitution is a Liberal document. All our social struggles, from abolition to women's suffrage, to Civil Rights, to GLBT Equality, are all struggles that are won by appealing to the inherent respect for personal liberty bound up in the political DNA of both parties. Working the phones for R74, I found the most effective way to win a vote was not by arguing theological minutiae or railing for or against tradition. It was by pointing out the lack of freedom experienced by GLBT people in our society, and how liberty is something we all embrace. The Freedom to Marry is the slogan that won R74.

Both Democrats and Republicans are Liberal parties. So are the Greens and the Libertarians.

58
Look, TT, I get what you're saying, but the terms "liberal" and "conservative" today tend to be used in relative terms. Liberals seek to expand personal liberties, while conservatives try to keep in place current principles.
59
58,

It's not really that simple. Are the "conservatives" restricting the liberty of corporations, billionaires, religious institutions and people, or are they expanding them?

And what is it that the "conservatives" lose their shit about fastest and with the greatest force? Perceived threats to the liberty of their constituents.

And how is it that political log jams are broken? Usually by dispelling illusory threats to that liberty.

Why did 55% of Washingtonians legalize pot? Because it doesn't threaten anybody is your next door neighbor gets stoned. Why did R74 pass? Because after you get to know GLBT people personally, you realize we're not a threat to you or your family or your religion or anything else.

Why is gun control so damn difficult to pass in the US? Perceived loss of personal liberty.

Do "conservatives" want to restrict women's rights, or expand civil rights of fetuses? If you listen to them, they'll tell you the latter, not the former.

When two groups are in conflict, the parties team up to choose sides in whose civil liberties they want to expand.

And there are even groups that neither party will fight to expand the liberties of. These include unskilled laborers, the homeless, atheists, and people that support the overthrow of the government. There is nobody of either party that would call for the repeal of the Smith Act or the Taft-Hartley Act. There is no pressure to put an end to day labor or temp work, which keeps employees in a precarious position where they can be fired at any moment for no reason at all, and have zero hope of acquiring economic stability. Suppression of Occupy Wall Street was harsh in cities governed by "liberal" mayors such as Portland and Olympia. And do you hear a single voice in Congress that would describe housing as a human right to which every American is entitled?

No, you don't. That's because these concepts restrict the free market. The free market is central to both parties, as it is to every Liberal party in the world. One of Liberalism's central tenets is"The rising tide lifts all boats".

Those who feel that this tenet is false are not called Liberals, they are called Socialists. Socialism sees that in a hurricane, smaller boats do not rise to a higher level but are instead plunged to the ocean floor or dashed upon the rocks. And while Liberals and Socialists do share some common values, they disagree on how freedom from want is to be secured.

Socialism does not exist in America the way i does in much of the world. Canada's opposition party is a socialist party, and in Australia the party in power right now is a socialist party. A campaign to suppress socialism through force was initiated by Woodrow Wilson-who was not a Republican. And anti-socialist policies have been favored by both parties ever since. Only rarely do you find politicians such as Fiorello LaGuardia or Glenn Taylor who did not favor suppression of this political philosophy.

So, you see, there is nuance to politics that defies the one dimensional model. We are not on a single line with two poles moving from Left to Right. The Democrats and the Republicans are both liberal, they just favor liberalization for different constituencies and oppose each other when their constituencies both see their liberty as threatened by the other. Some constituencies are not protected by either party, and have their civil liberties suppressed by both. That's true today, and it has been true ever since colonial times. An early example is illustrated by Bacon's Rebellion. A more modern one is illustrated by Occupy Wall Street.

60
@42: kesh, yes I did read the article. Can you point to any evidence, other than the CSW's opinion, that the john intended to kill her? I don't consider the fact that he held her chained up for 8 hours, instead of whatever time interval they negotiated (the article is coy about this) to be evidence of homicidal intent. Evidently in CSW the negotiation of duration is one of the critical factors- a john keeping her tied up longer than they agreed is a commercial matter not a criminal one.

Again, I'm not saying she wasn't raped; she was, and he deserves to do time. But 12 years when she agreed to be bound, blindfolded, brought to his house, tied up, and vaginally inserted seems incredibly excessive and more about mainstream society's disapproval of CSW and BDSM than what the facts of the case merit.
61
Ps- put another way, I'd rather have this guy living on my street than any of those youth pastors that Dan lights to highlight.
62
60, 61

Consider this. Let's say you and I met at a bar, and you were ripped, sloshed, trashed, fucking drunk, out-of-it.

I notice your state extreme intoxication, and challenge you to a game of poker. During the game, you make all manner of judgement errors that you would never make while sober. By the end of the night, I've got the title to your car, the deed to your house, all your credit cards and the PIN number as well as your ATM card. Further, you've signed a contract and woke up in a bathtub full of ice with stitches over one of your kidneys.

Have I done evil? You did give me all these things willingly. You're homeless, destitute, and missing a vital organ, and you've gained nothing at all from the experience. Does that make what I've done to you correct?

There's a character in War and Peace named Dolokhov that does this very thing to a very young naif (sans the kidney). The character of Dolokhov is what we would now call a psychopath.

I would argue that this rapist is also a psychopath. Contract law does not supercede basic moral principles, and just because someone can be manipulated into destroying themselves doesn't mean you have license to do so. Taking advantage of the weak and defenseless is in fact the most reprehensible thing you can do. What is it about those youth pastors that offends us all-the fact that they take advantage of the helpless and weak. And that is what this rapist has done, and what you suggest is not all that bad.

You're wrong, it is that bad. It's horrible. And the victim of this crime does not deserve your beratement. You are blaming the victim of a horrible crime. And that is also reprehensible. It is as vile as if you were to blame one of the children abused by a priest or youth pastor-after all, those kids consented after being threatened with hellfire, didn't they?
63
@62: people experience this all the time in Vegas, either at the gaming tables or in the strip club VIP rooms (minus the kidney thing). It's totally legal to seperate a fool from their money. People have free agency, and it's not your or my job to keep grownups from making their own decisions.
64
63,

I disagree with you again. It is in fact our job to protect one another from those who would take advantage of the weak.

That which is legal is not always ethical or moral. At one time, the Fugitive Slave Act demanded that anyone knowing of a runaway slave had to turn them in to the authorities. Those who conducted the Underground Railroad violated that law. What they did was both illegal and highly moral.

The converse is also true. It may indeed be legal in many states to deny a GLBT person a job or to kick that person out of their housing. But it is most definitely immoral to do so.

Here too, we see the same pattern. You say that this practice of exploiting the defenseless is legal. I say it is immoral.
65
@64: funny, your examples are all where the government should have been broadening the rights and freedoms of its citizens. But yet you argue to deny the freedom of consenting adults to engage in certain consentual acts because, basically, they squick you out. Inconsistent.
66
The government was broadening the rights of some citizens-at the expense of others. The rights they were broadening were the rights of the slaveholders.

And in Virginia, where it is legal to deny both housing and employment to GLBT people, the rights of bigots are broadened at the expense of GLBT people.

So the question has nothing to do with the broadening of rights. Groups locked in struggle always achieve their liberty at the expense of someone else's. The question is whether the liberty being lost is the liberty to harm or exploit. If you were o legalize murder. one could argue that you were broadening the liberty of murderers. That argument does not make that legislation moral.

And just as you can never make murder moral simply by couching the argument in favor of it in terms of broadening liberty, you will never make the exploitation of this woman moral. Evil is evil.
67
@66: "And in Virginia, where it is legal to deny both housing and employment to GLBT people, the rights of bigots are broadened at the expense of GLBT people...Groups locked in struggle always achieve their liberty at the expense of someone else's."

First of all, it's absurd to say that bigots gain rights by preventing gay marriage, unless you have some definition of "right" that I've never heard of before. What right, exactly, do they gain? Likewise, the voting and civil rights acts of the mid-60s took no rights away from whites. Political power, yes, but no rights. So to say that liberty is a zero sum game, and therefore we can't use it as a test for a proposed public policy, is just a misread of history and the law.

You don't like CSW, and want to criminalize solicitation while legalizing prostitution, because the prostitutes are good and downtrodden and the johns are bad and exploitive. I think that's silly and unenforceable and incredibly simplistic, and I'm glad that people who think that LGBT and interracial marriage is similarly "immoral" don't get to use THEIR moral compass to write the laws. And I'm eager to see your letters to the Stranger asking them to stop posting CSW ads and giving time to Mistress Matisse and all other CSWs who are too deeply enslaved to see their chains.
68
@60,

Yes, the idea that a john might enjoy torturing and murdering a prostitute is totally out of line:

She said she endured Hauff’s abuse because she didn’t want to tip him off that the police could be on their way. But after eight hours, she told him of the text message she had sent.

“I was just sick of being tortured. I was in excruciating pain. If he was going to kill me, I just wanted him to get it over with,” she said. “He was really enjoying himself.”

His demeanor changed when he learned of, then saw, the text message on the woman’s phone, she said. He gave her another $100 and drove her back to Seattle.


Fuck you, asshole.