Pays for pussy
Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, David Vitter move over; the roll call of spectacular hypocrites in politics has a new addition, this time a goo-goo Democrat.
Dawn speaks, of course, of New York ex-Governor Eliot Spitzer. As New York's attorney general, Mr. Spitzer pushed for harsh new penalties for those patronizing prostitutes. And while New York's attorney general, Mr. Spitzer patronized prostitutes. Lots of them. More than $80,000 worth of them. Evidently, the law-and-order former prosecutor thought that only others were deserving of a year in prison for, in his words, promoting "modern-day slavery."
In any sexually sane person's book, paying someone for erotic attention should, of course, carry no more opprobrium than hiring someone to re-tile one's bathroom floor. So Dawn wants to make clear that Mr. Spitzer's ethical shortcoming was not that he liked to pay for sex, but rather his condemnation of others who shared his predilection; that he was in a position to destroy the lives of those who engaged in the same behavior he so lustily enjoyed (wiretaps evidently confirm that "Client 9," Spitzer's alias in court documents, "performed well"), transforms his hypocrisy into a moral monstrosity. It would be like a governor of Texas advocating long prison terms for those who snort cocaine, while he himself had used family connections to avoid punishment for the very same activity....
There remain questions of public interest that the avalanche of media attention to l'affaire Spitzer has not addressed: How is the governor hung? Does he enjoy a finger up his ass when receiving head? Is he into watersports? Does he ever call his whores "mommy"? Alas, given the prevailing reticence to probe for that of greatest relevance in such cases, the public is likely to remain uninformed on these salient points, distracted instead by political wrangling and puritanical clucking.
Also unasked: Will ex-Governor Spitzer be required to register as a sex-offender under statutes he himself crusaded for? Branding Spitzer as a trackable-for-life predator may be the silver lining in this tawdry political storm; maybe such an absurdity visited upon someone rich and powerful -- and heterosexual -- will awaken a debate about cruel, unjust, and counter-productive sex-offender registries.
Similarly inadequately addressed: Don't cops have better things to do than snooping to find hookers and those who patronize them? If they do discover such activity while pursuing other matters, shouldn't they avert their eyes (and ears) and protect the privacy of those whose sex lives they have violated?
While such germane questions go unasked and unanswered, the pundits at CNN conducted a day's worth of Spitzer-mania under a graphic blaring, "What was He Thinking?!" Now, that's a stupid question. No doubt, Mr. Spitzer's thoughts went something like, "I want to get my pole greased by some freaky-hot pussy, but as a high-profile politico, I can't risk bar pick-ups, internet cruising, or flings with staffers -- I'd be a sitting-duck for extortion and shakedown; thus, the rational thing to do is pay for professional attention whereby discretion can be assured." Simple, sensible. But in Spitzer's case, also damnably hypocritical.
You are not logged in.
No comments yet, but
click here to be the first to comment on this