First of all, I can't seem to upload photos, which sucks. So imagine a pretty painting up top.
Second, I want to comment on Gov. Eliot Spitzer's prostitution problem, and direct your attention to Glenn Greenwald's blog. He, unfortunately, misses the point completely. This is surprising, as he's normally spot on.
It theory, I can see the validity of some of the arguments for de-criminalizing prostitution. Greenwald writes:
For all the people in comments and everywhere else waxing oh-so-indignantly over the moral evils of prostitution, do you also want to criminalize adult pornography? How can it possibly be the case that the former is outlawed while the latter is permissible?
This is a good point, and it speaks to the theoretical morality of prostitution. It doesn't, however, speak to the actual morality of it. Now, in the real world, prostitution is often little more than slavery. The theoretical element of choice and consent is demolished by the addition of coercion and, often, violence. Were prostitution not a system of subjugation and forced sexual labor, I might have less of a problem with Gov. Spitzer's actions. But prostitution--as it is now--is not just illegal but immoral.
Furthermore, while I'm not going to assign this motive to Greenwald, a consistently principled writer, I wonder how much of the "who cares about prostitution" sentiment from the lefty blogtopia is driven by the D after Spitzer's name.
Putting aside the obvious hypocrisy and illegality of his actions. There is no excuse for his engagement in the horrific practice of prostitution.
Lastly, I also want to--and I'm sorry about all the politics talk, but I haven't finished much non-academic reading recently--speak to the illogic on both sides of the Democratic nomination process. Sen. Obama and his supporters and surrogates have made the claim that super-delegates should "respect the will of the people" and abide by either their state's or the national pledged delegate count. This is to say that they shouldn't throw their support to Sen. Clinton if Sen. Obama leads in the pledged delegate count.
Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton, her surrogates, and most of the media, have claimed that Clinton "won" Texas and Nevada, despite losing in the delegate count. They make this claim because she won the popular vote.
Both of these claims rest on the flawed assumption that the nomination process is essentially democratic and representative of "the will of the people." This is simply not the case. The only count that matters is the delegate count, not the popular vote. The Democratic nomination process is based on an insane and byzantine system of awarding delegates based on party loyalty and voting patterns. It's fucked up, but it is how it is.
The delegate count is the only factor used in deciding who will clinch the nomination. So, for Obama to claim that super-delegates will overturn the will of the people is ridiculous as there is only a liminal relationship between the will of the people and the delegate count. Similarly, Clinton can hardly claim that she won Texas, when she only fell further behind in the delegate count.
That Obama's and Clinton's positions are based on pragmatic concerns rather than valid logic is hardly surprising. But things have gone to far when people start throwing around phrases like "distortion of democracy" and so on. This season just gets sillier and sillier...
|