Thursday, September 6, 2007

According to Republicans Prostitution Must be OK

Have you noticed the virtual (by comparison to the Larry Craig fiasco) silence from Republicans on Senator David Vitter breaking the law? Vitter's phone number was found on the records of the D.C. Madam.

So why aren't the Republicans calling for Vitter to step down? There are many similarities between Craig and Vitter. Like Craig, a self-righteous Republican has committed the "sin" he rails against (going to a prostitute instead of gay sex in a public rest room). So he is a hypocrite. And both actions are against the law.

On the other hand, there are differences. Vitter did not plead guilty to the police, although he did basically admit to seeing the prostitute. And I guess the other difference is that Vitter claims that the transgressions happened before he was in Congress. But, really, the big difference to the Republicans is probably where Vitter stuck his dick, not when.

I guess the Republicans are okay with prostitution as long as it is of the heterosexual variety.


derF said...

csm, I’m surprised at you. How could anyone rail against this? We all know that the ‘business of the country is business’. Yet, within any commercial system some items are bound to proscribed as contraband. Its only good business! It limits supply, increases demand and drives up the price. Why expect that the laws of commerce would change just because humans are being commodified?

csm said...

Oh, don't get me wrong, derF. It is my (humble) opinion that prostitution should be legal. Why should it be illegal to sell something you can give away for free?

The point I was making is the hypocrisy of the Republicans (this time) in saying they were piling on Craig because he broke the law and admitted it, not because of the "gay" stuff. Well, Vitter broke the law and admitted it, and none of those holier than thou fuckers are raising their voices.

Ceroill said...

I'm not surprised in the least. Disappointed but hardly surprised.



I am surprised at you. csm, IMHO, was just asking for consistency and "compassion" in the powers that be. Is that too much to ask, especially from fuckers who follow some ancient human who espouses compassion? Hypocrisy is just that, hypocrisy.

Also, in a free capitalist society, nothing should be "contraband" if no one else's rights or being are harmed. Prostitution is a capitalist transaction based on two people's word, the same as a plumber or auto mechanic. Or a doctor. The government at any level should have nothing to do with this transaction unless something goes awry for one side or the other. And like any totally free capitalist system without the government enacting laws just for laws sake, or some perceived moral justification, the evil middleman, i.e. the pimp, armed drug dealer or smuggler, shadowy facilitator, is taken out of the equation.

Anonymous said...

Oh… was I being contentious? I’ll admit it that I sometimes create an argument just so as to enter a zinger. “Why expect that the laws of commerce would change just because humans are being commodified?”

Those that currently post here have far more similarities than differences. For instance, I know that Bawdy would be one of the first to admit that we do not presently live within a ‘free’ capitalist society. The defining elements of latter-day capitalism prevent either ‘free’ or ‘fair’ trade. Within a corporate structure, CEO’s and boards are mandated to act in such a fashion as to secure the greatest possible profit for share-holders. Were they not to operate with profit as their ‘raison d’etre’, they would be subject to legal suit. This ensures an environment of ever increasing acquisition. Outside the ‘real world’, however, this mandate conflicts with the verities of a limited world. It makes it difficult for most to accept the shining light of ‘capitalism’ as a mantra.

As far as the connection between ‘capitalism’ and prostitution, all evidence indicates that the practice of exchanging goods for services exists within all cultures and economic systems throughout time. There is, to my mind, a difference between an individual entering such an exchange and the creation of an economic environment where entering such an industry becomes the only economically viable option for the bulk of a country’s female population (i.e. CCCP).

As far as Craig and Vitter are concerned, the fact that the Governor of Idaho is a Republican and the Governor of Louisiana is a Democrat is far more relevant for the parties than the type of ‘indiscretion’. Like ‘capitalism’, party politics also has an acquisitive mandate – gain political power. Morality and ethics probably don’t place a distant second.


csm said...

Good point about the governor situation. I'm sure that is a contributor to the situation. I'm guess a Republican senator could sodomize a goat and put a video of it on YouTube and not meet with much resistance if the governor of his state is a Democrat.

Ceroill said...

I am reminded of something somebody once said, I forget who: Prostitution is not the world's oldest profession. Begging is: Someone had to ask first.



One thing I would like to mention about our form of capitalism in this country is the fact some industries in this country(steel, textiles for instance)demand from our government protection from foreign competition because they cannot compete on that playing field. This is an impediment to "free" and "fair" trade, but is the other side of the coin of which you mention. It also isn't fair to American consumers who ultimately have the final economic vote, but this vote is negated by our governments actions. If this country cannot farm or create steel because somebody else can do it cheaper, we should get out of farming and making steel. Just ask cotton farmers in Western Africa about how fair our cotton subsidies are, and these people do not have the safety nets we do in this country by far.

derF said...

It occurs to me that as long as the globe is divided between the authorities of contentious organizations (government, corporate) conflicting interests will influence the outcomes of popular actions.

The protection for steel manufacturer came about because of the 1951 Supreme Court decision ‘Youngstown v Sawyer’. In that decision the Court denied the President the authority to “take possession of and operate most of the Nation’s steel mills.” The ‘taking’ had occurred as a result of the Administration’s perception that a threatened strike by the United Steelworkers of America would undermine the Commander in Chief’s ability to conduct a foreign war and therefore threaten the security of the Nation. The President’s justification for the ‘taking’ of private property hinged, to a great degree, on the fact that a “continuing and uninterrupted supply of steel is [indispensable] to the maintenance […] the United States.”

The Court, while agreeing to the importance steel played in the Nation’s security, observed that “All legislative Powers […] shall be vested in Congress.” Therefore, the Power of Congress to “adopt […] public policies […] is beyond question.” This was a question of principle concerning which branch of government had the Power to exercise ‘takings’ yet, at the same time, it firmly established the importance of steel to the National community and the Government’s right to exercise some control over it.

Farm subsidies had their origins in the same line of thinking… the security of the Nation. For, what living entity is secure if it cannot feed itself? To insure this ability, as the Nation switched from a rural to an urban demographic, popular support fell towards efforts to secure the national food supply. Though it is now true that the bulk of these subsidies now support non-living legal entities those were not the circumstances at the time of the policy’s inception.

The key point of these legislations, I believe, is community. That would be a community comprised of citizens. Though they may be primarily consumers in the market-place, the market exists only as a fraction of a community’s concerns.

P.S. I'd never really thought of Beggars as Professionals before. Please tell me, Bob, if I ever slip into a Beggar's advocacy.

derF said...

Naomi Klein wrote a book; Jonás Cuarón directed a film.

derF said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
derF said...

Getting back on topic, you may have noticed the story of Assistant U.S. Attorney John David Roy Atchison. Atchison flew from Pensacola, Fla., to Detroit, Mich., in hopes of paying for the privilege of having sex with a five-year-old. A detective, acting as the child's mother, allegedly arranged a sexual encounter between Atchison and the 5-year-old girl. It turns out that Atchison is a republican, though I think that is incidental, it just another example of economic and political elites destroying a country, while upholding the market’s “Rule of Law.” ‘A price for everything and everything with its price.’