moonbattery.gif


« Culture of Corruption | Main | Let the Merchandizing Begin »


March 10, 2008

Alan Dershowitz Projects Eliot Spitzer's Hypocrisy on America

Amazing. A sanctimonious pit bull who has prosecuted prostitution rings with ostentatious moral disdain disgraces his office and humiliates his family by arranging to hook up with a prostitute, and who's the hypocrite? You are, if you're American.

NewsBusters reports from MSNBC's upside-down, inside-out world of moonbattery, where Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz "sounded quivering and emotional" as he proclaimed:

I feel that this is a America-only story that we have to put in perspective. You know, big deal, married man goes to prostitute! In Europe, this wouldn't even make the back pages of the newspaper. It's a uniquely American story. We're a uniquely, you know, pandering society and hypocritical society, when it comes to sex.

Yet there are people who will still take this jackass seriously.

Alan_Dershowitz.jpg
Dershowitz says you're a hypocrite.

On a tip from Cheetah.

Posted by Van Helsing at March 10, 2008 5:39 PM

Comments

We're a uniquely, you know, pandering society and hypocritical society, when it comes to sex.

Yeah, expecting people to honor sacred, marital vows is like, so uncool, man.

Posted by: V the K at March 10, 2008 5:45 PM

Posted by: V the K at March 10, 2008 6:00 PM

Obviously he was real concerned that there are going to be no more doctors in NY soon, seeing how the trial lawyers just tacked on another $50,000 to their insurance, up from the $75,000 they tacked on two years ago.

They docs are leaving NY in droves, so don't plan on getting sick here anytime soon

Posted by: wiz at March 10, 2008 6:13 PM

"You know, big deal, married man goes to prostitute!"

Yeah, he just destroyed his family with his infidelity. Big deal.

Posted by: Kristy at March 10, 2008 6:27 PM

Was Dershowitz critical of Spitzer's prosecution of others for the same illegality? If not, why not?

Maybe Dershowitz will formally assist the governor in his courtroom defense. I'd like to see that but since Spitzer was supposedly "Client #9", maybe Dershowitz will hold out for someone with even deeper pockets and a higher or lower number on the "client" list.

Posted by: tfhr at March 10, 2008 6:39 PM

In Europe, this wouldn't even make the back pages of the newspaper.

Hey, stupid! Most of our ancestors left to get away from Europe, not simply transplant their bad habits. Clown.

Posted by: Eric at March 10, 2008 7:08 PM

Fucknut Dershowitz missed the point, which has nothing to do with marital infidelity or the fact Spitzer bought time with a prostitute. It has to do with the hypocritical douchebag prosecuting them, probably having the John's faces posted on the news etc. I could care less that he cheated on his wife. I care he prosecuted it and didn't legalize it, yet availed himself of thie service.

Its okay for rich politician assholes to have that, but fuck no for your average American Man or Woman. Fucking asshole probably made it part of some moral crusade.

Posted by: Brooklyn Red Leg at March 10, 2008 7:15 PM

I truly appreciate the sentiment, and the conviction behind it, but let's try not to descend to Democrat levels of profanity, OK?

Thanks.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 10, 2008 7:52 PM

"You know, big deal, married man goes to prostitute! In Europe, this wouldn't even make the back pages of the newspaper."

You know, this statement is not incorrect, but Dershowitz is a douche so I'll give you guys this one....

Posted by: hashfanatic at March 10, 2008 10:50 PM

The other angle is, of course, the connection between prostitution and organized crime, especially in NY.

Posted by: V the K at March 11, 2008 3:26 AM

Absolutely, and that's where the hypocrisy comes in as well, because, as one who made his bones prosecuting exactly such criminal rings, he knew damn well just how wide of a range of total debauchery, greed, and just plain evil they encompassed...

It's just wrong and IMHO is far worse than Craig or the other Republican scandals because of the level he was at and the amount of exposure, no pun intended, involved, with the potential for blackmail and the betrayal of the public trust.

I'm already hearing of pundits standing in defense of him and this is inexcusable. At some point, the partisan apologetics have to stop and we just have to be men and admit that he is a Democrat that totally went wrong, he needs to face the music, and we have to accept that we will all have to take the ribbing and the flack for this one for a while.

I know it is not mine to sit in judgement but I think we all deserve better.

Posted by: hashfanatic at March 11, 2008 5:01 AM

Wow, hash is agreeing with us?

Dershowitz is so pathetic.
He'd have us just ignore the fact that Spitzer is a hypocrite, and destroyed his family for a quick fling, just because some adulterous Eurotrash pervs are so morally depraved that they see nothing wrong with such disgraceful behavior.

Posted by: Adam at March 11, 2008 7:09 AM

Alan Douchebag is at it again?

" In Europe, this wouldn't even make the back pages of the newspaper. It's a uniquely American story. "

I guess America is not as far gone as I thought - maybe there is still hope. But thats not really saying much as Europe has is full of degenerates and muzzies. Once under muzzie rule all prostitutes will have their snatches sewn shut or they will have their heads chopped off.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2008 7:16 AM

Would Gentleman Allen Dershowitz have belittled the moral significance of Mr. Elliot Spitzer's ethical decadence if has was, not a Jew, but a Islamic law preacher, scherif of Wall Street, and a terrifying prosecutor who functioned as New York's attorney general and posed as moral standard for the rest of the society to follow?

Posted by: Ardeshir O. at March 11, 2008 7:43 AM

Would Gentleman Allen Dershowitz have belittled the moral significance of Mr. Elliot Spitzer's ethical decadence if has was, not a Jew, but a Islamic law preacher, scherif of Wall Street, and a terrifying prosecutor who functioned as New York's attorney general and posed as moral standard for the rest of the society to follow?

Posted by: Ardeshir O. at March 11, 2008 7:43 AM

Just once, when one of these politicians gets caught dipping his wick, I'd like to see him NOT show up at a press conference with his "supportive" wife at his side. I'd like to see the wife at home throwing his possessions out on the lawn and getting the number of a good divorce attorney.

Posted by: V the K at March 11, 2008 8:09 AM

I would argue against legalizing prostitution on two bases. First, I think turning sex into a commercial transaction is very bad for the soul, and for one's humanity. Second, as Derb puts it, "To a lover of liberty, it's hard to see why a woman shouldn't sell her favors if she wants to. Trouble is, weak or dimwitted women end up in near-slavery to unscrupulous men, and I think there's a legitimate public interest in not letting that happen."

Posted by: V the K at March 11, 2008 9:24 AM

V--

On your first point, I think that's an entirely valid opinion that you're of course entitled to. But is it the job of the state to save souls? I don't believe it is. So, for me this isn't an issue of whether prostitution is a good thing or a bad thing, it's a question of whether it should be an illegal thing. The only (IMV) valid purpose of laws should be to protect individuals from the agressions of others. If we ask the state to make us better people, we invite the very statist moonbattery this blog protests against.

"Trouble is, weak or dimwitted women end up in near-slavery to unscrupulous men, and I think there's a legitimate public interest in not letting that happen."

Then you argue for state control in all things. "Weak or dimwitted" persons may do all manner of unwise things; they may end up married to terrible people, doing appalling jobs, being exploited in all kinds of ways. If we seek a state that protects us from our own weakness or dimness of wit, then we seek the smothering "liberal" state that tells me I can't buy a can of soda because I'm addicted and fooled by advertising**.

As regards the specific issue of pimping in prostitution as it stands; that's entirely a result of illegality and prohibition. Whenever a product is unwisely banned by the state, organised crime moves in. It should be the job of the state to create an environment in which businesses can operate freely and fairly. That doesn't happen when they are illegal of course. (As an aside, it is worth noting that the entirely unregulated criminal businesses in drugs, prostitution (where illegal) etc are remarkably effective at producing a steady supply of quality product, which rather supports the libertarian capitalist viewpoint. I was discussing this with a friend earlier today; in terms of drugs, they shift massive amounts of product which despite no state quality controls is rarely toxic; millions of people use their products every day and harm through toxicity is rare. Even criminals know it's bad business to murder your customer base.)

Organised crime thrives on those things that people want to do but which government impotently attempts to prohibit. Take away the sex and the drugs, and they'd be forced to largely fall back on protection rackets. If I were in political power, I would then personally focus police resources on that last criminal sector (which is not a consequence of a prohibition)- and the more mafiosi who get shot before they get to court, the better, frankly.

Back with the women. There are lots of women out there running their own "escort" businesses who we shouldn't presume are weak or dimwitted. Many young women choose prostitution as a way of earning a good wage for a while (e.g. while at college or between jobs) as it's a lot better paid than burger flipping. At the other end of the spectrum, the stereotypical drug addicted streetwalker has generally turned to prostitution because her life's already at the bottom of the barrel, and it's one of the few employment options open to her. Taking that away won't solve her problems.

"and I think there's a legitimate public interest in not letting that happen"

I'd also criticise this as the Statist Fallacy- the idea that making something illegal is the same as stopping it happening. Living here in the former UK, our provincial government is obsessed with this idea; that all they have to do is ban something and it will cease- then they become perplexed when it doesn't occur. All the grand prohibitions- alcohol, drugs, prostitution- have seen a disastrous disconnect between intention and effect. All they do is force out legitimate businesses and replace them with murderous crime gangs.

As I've said, personally I've no moral problem with prostitution anyway, but even if I had I'd still argue it's better for a woman to be legally working for herself, or for a legitimate business, than for a homicidal criminal gang or some drug addled pimp.


**I just thought of that because I gave up caffeine a week ago and boy would I like a coffee right now.

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at March 11, 2008 9:50 AM

That's where I part company with libertarianism. I happen to believe that in a very few, well-defined and limited circumstances, there is a compelling societal interest in using state power to limit (or promote) personal behavior. And Democracy is (or ought to be) the tool we use to do the cost/benefit analysis that tells us what those few circumstances are.

Posted by: V the K at March 11, 2008 10:17 AM

Dershowitz wrote a book a few years ago in which he said, essentially, that we can only know what's wrong, not what's right. In other words, he wants to hold onto moral relativism when it works for him or his buddies (sex with hookers), but he doesn't want to say that the Holocaust was not an absolute wrong.
My Yiddish is a bit rusty, but the word that comes to mind is "schmuck."

Posted by: PabloD at March 11, 2008 10:29 AM

1 in 4 teenage girls has an STD. These are the consequences of a sexually permissive culture.

Posted by: V the K at March 11, 2008 10:36 AM

With all due respect V, that's "liberal style" argumenting. Throw up a scary statistic, use that to prove that "something must be done".

The majority of the 1 in 4 girls are carrying human papillomavirus, which is indeed a sexually transmitted disease but isn't what most people think when they hear "STD". They think AIDS, syphillis etc. It's only recently been realised that this virus is a serious problem as it sometimes causes cervical cancer. There is a vaccine, and some ahem conservative groups have been opposing the giving of that vaccine. That makes little sense to me.

About half the population carry helicobacter pylori, the bacterium that can cause stomach ulcers, as a comparison. I don't see that declared to be a moral problem. We don't use that as a reason to tell people to alter their lifestyles or that it's their own fault. I had whooping cough last year; that's pretty nasty too. Infectious diseases are an occupational hazard of being alive.

And I repeat that while you or others may be keen to use the power of the state to limit or promote behaviours, it's a grossly ineffective tool. In Iran, homosexuals are executed by slow strangulation; yet still they find gays to murder.

Freedom is the western way of life; as Pat Condell said in the video- we didn't earn it, we were handed it by people who paid for it with their lives, and we are its custodians.

"Democracy is (or ought to be) the tool we use to do the cost/benefit analysis that tells us what those few circumstances are."

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner :)

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at March 11, 2008 10:51 AM

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner :)

Indeed. Mobocracy is tyrannical by its very nature.

Posted by: Brooklyn Red Leg at March 11, 2008 11:06 AM

he was right about OJ to.....hahaha

Posted by: Dave v at March 11, 2008 11:19 AM

Pure democracy, yes, is four wolves and a sheep voting on who's for dinner. That's not what I'm advocating. I don't care any more for pure democracy than I do for pure libertarianism. But, within a framework where basic individual rights are defined are inalienable, there is room for society to decide that some activities can be promoted (such as foster parenting) and others prohibited (prostitution, drug abuse) because of the benefit or cost to the stability of society.

I believe strongly that in order for basic rights to be protected requires a strong, self-assured society. Europe is collapsing, and a huge part of the reason that is is because in a culture of moral relativism, society loses its ability to value itself. If you can't say "Prostitution is wrong," it becomes progressively more difficult to say things like "the Muslim treatment of women is wrong." Muslims may treat women like chattel, but libertarianism says the women have consented to that station and that role, so we can say nothing about it.

Posted by: V the K at March 11, 2008 12:22 PM

AFIC, Spengler of the Asia Times gives the best reason for not legalizing prostitution:

"Civilizations in decline typically take on the characteristics of Bonobo monkeys, Nero's Rome being the most lurid example."

Posted by: Panday at March 11, 2008 2:55 PM

Er, when Nero was emperor, Rome was at the height of its unchallenged superpower. The decline occurred under later emperors in the christian period, particularly the pious Theodosius and his rabble of squabbling offspring. The hypothesis just doesn't fit history.

Also, bonobos are apes, not monkeys, and are humanity's closest living relative species.

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at March 11, 2008 3:38 PM

Ian,

The rot was like undiagnosed cancer, which took time to spread. During the time of Nero, it was a polyp.

Not much different than moonbattery.

By the time of Theodosius, the cancer was terminal and nothing was going to stop it. Besides, Spengler wasn't remarking on just the government, but the citizenry.

Posted by: Panday at March 11, 2008 5:44 PM

Rome rose as a republic and fell as an empire.

Posted by: KHarn at March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

Unfortunately he was caught. However it may have come about, Spitzer was caught in a very compromising and vulnerable position. Entrapment, spy tactics, whatever he could not deny what he did, so he came clean and public about it. His community insisted he step down and he had no choice but to yield. Call it the consequence of exposure; legal or illegal. As a public servant the same people who voted him in voted him out by popular demand, but he put himself in harms way and paid dearly for his errors of judgement. I guess being hansom helps a lot because I;ve never had to pay $5,000 to a girl for sex, maybe dinner, a movie, theater tickets or a vacation together.

Posted by: Jimm at March 13, 2008 11:38 AM