Maybe from Dad.

First, whether one agrees with the law or not; prostitution is illegal in the state of New York, as well as in the District of Columbia. The people who established this law justified it on the basis that prostitution is NOT a victimless crime. (Maybe you would argue that at $3k/hr and up, there is a question as to the vicitim is, but that is irrelevant) More importantly, anytime someone who is charged to enforce the law, flouts the law it is cause for concern to our whole society.

Second, this guy has prosecuted prostitution rings during his meteoric career. That was part of his legend. I doubt that the people who faced Spitzer’s prosecutorial power would shrug this off. They are certainly justified in asking whether he shouldn’t be held to the same standards as those he pursued? As you may know it is standard practice in most juridictions to humiliate , and otherwise punish “Johns”, as well as the people plying the trade. Many police departments set up stings for the purpose of catching them. I know that DC does; and, I wouldn’t be surprised if New York does something along those lines. This guy may move in more discreet circles and pay a hell of a lot more for what he gets, but the nitty gritty is, he is a “John” just like the schmuck who picks up a hooker on the street. He should not be treated any better, or any worse.

Third, the bottom line; the awesome level of pure hypocrisy exhibited by this guy raises legitimate questions as to whether he has the intellectual honesty and moral fiber we should expect of people we allow to govern us. (Oh, I know he is probably no worse than some, perhaps many, others; but, that is no reason to shrug and move on when any of them are caught.)

On the other hand, I remain uncertain why anyone disapproves or cares. It’s one of those “crimes” that probably ought not to be, and should remain between he and his wife.

Where Spitzer got the money is probably the same place he got all of his money: Daddy. Spitzer is one of those New York democrats, much like Schumer, who have apparently never held an actual job in their lives outside of the politically appointed, or political office. He’s run into problems before with how his expensive lifestyle and expensive housing was supported, and the answer always seems to have been Daddy, a New York City housing mogul. His “government employee” salary was pretty much the least of what he had available, always. The problems arose with his lack of clear reporting/transparency about it. He’d have been far better if he’d just admitted from day 1: “I’m incapable of making a living commensurate with how I like to live, so I live off Big Daddy, and there it is” – but that would probably be a blow to whatever pride he has, or tries to project.

But he fits right in with the “prominent democrat” model: “Do as I say, not as I do.” The implication is: “rules are for you peasants, not me.”

As for Spitzer; some people have written that he achieved fame and political fortune by using the considerable power of a Prosecutor to ruin the lives of high-profile business people through dubious prosecutions. I don’t know about that. But, given the documented excesses of Prosecutors arround the country, I have no sympathy of any of them who are caught.

Nookie? Don’t think I have heard that term since high school.

And then the media will say “we didn’t tell anyone America or Bush sucked”. We’re unbiased, we’re the straight down the middle, so sayeth Bill Keller of the New york TImes.

On an objective scale, though, reporting organizations such as the New York Times do not produce very good quality propaganda. The reason is simple. They not only fool others but they also fool themselves. It is one thing to make propaganda, it is quite another thing to fall for your own propaganda. Then you become from a puppet master to a puppet.

The only reason why the media appears to be dominating the debate and the information warfare is that there is absolutely no opposition to them. Competent or incompetent. With no opposition, it is very easy to win, even if you are the lowest of the low in terms of skill.

It is just their propaganda at work.

I know people who actually thought Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat and were quite surprised to find out that he was, gasp*, a Republican.

This exploits the propaganda principle that it is best to have your target audience draw their conclusions. Especially when those conclusions favor you and you influenced them into making those conclusions.

So if you continue to mention Republican corruption and nada nada nada, then do not mention Democrat corruption by name and feat, then after awhile, people subconsciously make the assumption that ALL corruption they hear about are due to Republicans.

This is the marvel and beauty of propaganda and psychological warfare, Book. You convince somebody by making them believe that they were the ones that decided certain things were true. Instead of the truth, which is that I, the puppet master pulling the strings, was the one that decided for them what they were going to believe in.

You see the same thing with violence in Iraq. The media does not explicitly come out, like Bush tends to do in press conferences, and claim Iraq is going into endless civil war all the time, what they do is to simply allow people to draw those conclusions and then repeat those conclusions. Because the conclusions didn’t come from the media, people think, they don’t see the media as being “biased” or propaganda apparatuses. They think they were the ones that found information and made a judgement about Iraq. In reality, they did no such thing, Book.

The same thing also applies to violence and problems in America. Americans think the world is a rosy place because the only problems they hear are about are here in America. They don’t feel the pain of Iraqis or Russians or the Chinese or the Afghans, because the only problems they hear about are problems coming from America. So obviously people are going to think this country ain’t all that much to be proud of, correct.