That is not a just government where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations. – James Madison
You’ve probably noticed that I’ve been publishing quite a few miscellanea and update columns; since last May, I’ve had about 4-6 columns of that sort every month. Besides getting more reader submissions than I used to, I’ve also become better at finding articles myself. So rather than concentrating them together, I’ve decided to spread them out throughout the month. This will therefore be my last monthly miscellanea column; starting tomorrow I’ll present “That Was the Week That Was” every Saturday, except when it’s bumped to Friday or Sunday by some special circumstance.
Out of the Bedroom
Civil libertarians often say we want government out of our bedrooms, but here’s a politician who wants people out of their bedroom clothes:
…Michael Williams (of Shreveport, Louisiana) doesn’t care to see people in their PJs, at least not at a shopping center, restaurant or anywhere else in public…after seeing a group of young men at a local Walmart wearing pajama pants that revealed one young man’s private parts, he decided to push for an ordinance that would prohibit wearing pajama pants in public. “Pajamas are designed to be worn in the bedroom at night,” Williams said. “If you can’t (wear pajamas) at the Boardwalk or courthouse, why are you going to do it in a restaurant or in public? Today it’s pajamas,” Williams said. “Tomorrow it’s underwear. Where does it stop?”
…One problem with a possible ordinance is what constitutes pajamas. Williams said it could be defined as a garment sold in the sleepwear section of department stores, and violators should not go to jail but perform community service…The city of Shreveport [already] has a no-sagging law. In 2011, Shreveport police reported 31 incidents involving “wearing of pants below the waist in public.” Most of those were unattached to other more serious crimes, and the offenders were issued misdemeanor summons…
Unsurprisingly, Williams can’t see the irony in his own words: if we let politicians control the clothes we wear, “Today it’s pajamas…Tomorrow it’s underwear. Where does it stop?” I personally think pajamas in public are extremely déclassé, but so are sweat pants and nobody’s trying to make laws against them. Perhaps Williams would be happier in France, where lots of politicians think they have the right to tell people what not to wear.
The Hooker Vote
One day, politicians may actually concern themselves with winning the support of sex workers, but for the present the easiest way to get the hooker vote without losing that of the moralists is to point at that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate private behavior:
…Ron Paul can count on support from some members of the world’s oldest profession as he campaigns for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Prostitutes at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch…have launched a “Pimping for Paul” campaign for the Texas libertarian, who backs their right to earn a living as working girls…The Bunny Ranch ladies are asking johns to donate money to Paul’s campaign as they leave the brothel, which also backed Paul’s presidential bid four years ago. Though Paul hasn’t commented on the brothel’s latest drive, his spokesman told the Associated Press in 2007 that “while Paul does not personally condone prostitution, the candidate does not think it’s the role of the federal government to regulate such activity.” During a 2012 GOP candidates debate in May, Paul said that states should be free to legalize prostitution, gay marriage and marijuana if they choose to do so…U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada’s senior senator, told the state’s legislature last February “the time has come for us to outlaw prostitution,” which Reid said discourages businesses from moving to the state…
While I don’t vote and I’m not going to endorse any political candidate, the civil and sexual rights of American citizens will probably be less endangered under a Paul presidency than under a regime headed by of the other current candidates, especially Obama, Romney, Santorum or Gingrich.
The Mother Learns From Her Children
It’s beginning to seem as though the United Kingdom might be starting to learn something about sex worker rights from two of her former colonies. Like New Zealand, she may be moving in the direction of decriminalization. And as in Canada, the reason for the shift is the realization that the laws endanger the safety of sex workers. This article appeared in The Guardian on January 16th, and came to my attention via Harlot’s Parlour:
A series of gang attacks on brothels in east London has triggered calls for changes to the prostitution laws after victims who reported …robberies said they ended up being threatened with prosecution. A police investigation has been launched as senior Labour and Conservative members of the London assembly and the English Collective of Prostitutes allege that violent crime is being given a lower priority than less serious sex offences. The attacks highlight the growing debate over calls for New Zealand’s pioneering decriminalisation of sex work to be considered – an approach recently supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
…a spate of robberies…coincides with an increase in police raids…The first…was in Barking, east London, on 6 December. A video showing five men…breaking into another house in the area being used by sex workers is also being studied by officers. The women who made the first complaint allege they recognise some of the gang members from the YouTube clip. In a third attack, at a different address, a woman who worked as a maid at a brothel is alleged to have been raped by the gang. None of the victims there reported the offence for fear of being charged…with living off the proceeds of prostitution…The ECP said changes to the law, in response to fears over the forcible trafficking of foreign sex workers into Britain, have made it more difficult for women to work together…for safety.
A letter of complaint sent…[to the police by ECP activist] Niki Adams…[said] “We are receiving reports of incidents where women have been attacked and their attackers have told them brazenly that they know women won’t dare go to the police.” Adams believes there may have been as many as 20 attacks in the area over the past two years…Last November Simon Byrne, Acpo’s lead officer on prostitution and sexual exploitation, suggested there was a need for a fresh look at the legal balance…”There is a great amount of academic research available, much of which supports the view that an alternative approach is needed,” he wrote on his official Acpo blog. “An example would be the decriminalisation and regulation of brothels in Australia and New Zealand, not an answer to all of the related issues but certainly a solution to some. More of those involved in sex work in Australia and New Zealand can now access health services with ease, whilst maintaining more personal security in an emotive area for policing.”
Another proponent of reform is Andrew Boff, a Conservative member of the London assembly. “The law is framed so as to put women [sex workers] into the most vulnerable position,” he said. “The changes brought in by the last government seemed to [be derived from] the view that every single worker in the sex trade was trafficked. People are not willing to come forward over these attacks. When they report them, the women themselves have had action taken against them…” Len Duvall, the leader of the Labour group at the London assembly, said: “We need to examine in greater detail information and case studies from those countries that have sought to legalise prostitution, including the model put forward by New Zealand, especially if it provides a degree of protection for sex workers and reduces crimes associated with prostitution…There is also evidence that crimes against sex workers are being ignored”…Tim Barnett, the British-born former New Zealand MP who pushed through his adopted country’s decriminalisation legislation in 2003, was in London before Christmas where he briefed Boff and Duvall…
There’s definitely cause for hope here. American politicians can ignore New Zealand as an antipodean anomaly, but if Canada and the UK also decriminalize it’s going to be a lot harder for American prohibitionists to convince everyone that theirs is the “normal” view.
One Year Ago Today
“Maggie in the Media” is a description of all the interviews I gave last January, mostly on the subject of nonexistent Super Bowl prostitution booms.
“There’s definitely cause for hope here. American politicians can ignore New Zealand as an antipodean anomaly, but if Canada and the UK also decriminalize it’s going to be a lot harder for American prohibitionists to convince everyone that theirs is the “normal” view.”
Absolutely! I’ve worked in sex workers rights advocacy in the US and in NZ shortly after decriminalization. I think there’s an assumption in America that Kiwi culture must be radically different from US culture for that to work. But in the biggest difference I noticed in NZ (aside from significantly higher rates of crumpet consumption) is the lower crime rate. All the more reason for the US to decriminalize, and soon. Working girls here are especially vulnerable.
Thanks for this post Maggie!
You’re very welcome! 🙂
“The Bunny Ranch ladies are asking johns to donate money to Paul’s campaign as they leave the brothel…”
While I have seen requests at the Bunny Ranch for donations for such things as hungry families, toys for children, and High School band uniforms, I have never seen a request for donations for any political campaign.
Furthermore, I have never been asked by any of the ladies to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign…. Perhaps I’m not a john.
Ron Paul isn’t going anywhere – that’s an exercise in futility. And – even IF he were somehow elected President – he’d be powerless to do anything because the establishments in both the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress would thwart him at every turn – and, at his age … he doesn’t even have the energy to deal with all that.
People think I’m nuts – but, I’m telling you – I have WORKED in the beltway and I know these people. Both parties are equally corrupt. We have spent ourselves into oblivion and neither party has the desire to do anything about it – at least the Democrats are honest about that – while the Republicans, like John Cornyn talk about small government but vote to expand it at every opportunity. In fact, REAGAN expanded government. Trust me on this – we are completely and thoroughly SCREWED.
Maggie, I wonder if you know how RIGHT you are when you talk about politicians as a “privileged class”. That’s exactly what is going on up there – people who live a life of power and privilege paid for by the American taxpayer. Money is power … and like “spice” on “Dune” – it must flow … to the beltway (or they have no power).
Next President we vote for – we’ll be voting for who we want in the cockpit when the plane crashes.
But … I am interested in why you don’t vote?
I don’t vote for two reasons: 1) It’s an exercise it futility, as all of the fans of President Hopey Changey should understand by now. 2) People who believe in voting claim that “if you don’t vote you have no right to complain,” but this is logically specious. By voting, one enters into a tacit agreement to abide by the results. In other words, to vote is to agree that the contest is a valid one and the candidate who is elected is the rightful leader. I agree to no such thing, therefore I have no right to vote. The truth is, anyone who VOTES has no right to complain, because the leader was chosen by a process he agreed to and is therefore the right one.
How about turning in a blank ballot or voting for third party candidates?
Does LA have propositions to vote on like CA does?
Oh, and I wish ballots had a “None of the Above” option. 😀
Voting for third party candidates who can’t win accomplishes nothing except, as pointed out in #2, invalidate my right to complain. If I throw a vote, I have no right to complain about the income since I’ve AGREED by voting that the system is the right way to make decisions.
I always vote for some kind of outcome – or for the purpose of helping to push for some kind of outcome.
In the past – when I had hope – I would vote for “small government” candidates. Too late for small government now though – well, it’s not but we won’t get there in the next decade before the collapse.
So this election I’ll vote for the guy I want in the pilot seat when this chopper goes down. That’ll be Obama – not because he’s better at crashing – but exactly the opposite – he’ll bring on “U.S.A. Ver 2.0” a lot sooner because Americans will either turn to their roots and liberty – or they’ll turn to socialism and a generation of darkness. Either way – it’s time for the next stage.
So when you vote for somebody, you can’t say anything? That’s not how it works. That’s not how it has ever worked. By voting, I don’t “enter into a tacit agreement to abide by the results.” I agree to stay involved to the degree that I can. I agree that I have a voice, and while I can’t force anybody to listen to it, I can still holler in the hope that even if the candidate doesn’t hear me, somebody might.
Here in Texas, it really doesn’t matter who I vote for, as far as choosing a president is concerned. Texas is a winner-take-all state, and those thirty-eight Electoral votes will go to the Republican. All my vote does is skew the numbers when somebody goes to analyze them.
“Support for Obama in Texas fell from slight to minuscule compared to 2008.”
Too many people voted for Mr. Hopey Changey, shouted “HOORAY!” when he won, and then sat back to watch the man work miracles. Too many Democrats and Obama-voting independents wouldn’t criticize him, because oh gosh the Republicans are being so mean to him and besides, he’s our guy.
When the guy you voted for doesn’t win, you try to put pressure on him as best you can. When the guy you voted for does win, you try even harder to put pressure on him, to keep him as close as possible to what you voted for.
Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it even very good? Well, compared to what?
Sorry to go on and on like this, but damn.
The difference between us is that you believe our system can still work; I don’t. It’s fatally flawed and beyond redemption, and voting for one Big Government Party candidate or the other won’t make any difference because things will go on exactly as they have until something forces a change. And that “something” won’t be voting in a rigged system.
I don’t think that voting alone will do it. I’ll give an example:
Obama has been wanting to raise taxes on millionaires for a long time. Leave aside for now whether or not that’s a good idea. The fact is, he’s been wanting to. How far has he gotten with that? No. Where.
But now it looks like it might happen. Why? Because of Occupy. A lot of noise has been made, and now, it just might happen.
Another example: Ross Perot didn’t get a single electoral vote, and only 19% of the popular vote. But because of him, the deficit became a big deal, and we wound up with a balanced budget. Clinton got most of the credit, and Gingrich is trying to claim credit now, but a big heaping helping of the credit rightfully belongs to Ross Perot.
Anyhoo, it wasn’t your not voting that set me off as much as that weird contract stuff.
It’s not weird at all. Do you or do you not agree that the majority should pick the leaders? If you do, you can’t complain that your candidate didn’t win because the very fact that the winner was chosen by the majority means he is, BY DEFINITION, the right one. And if you don’t agree the majority should pick the leaders, then it’s wrong for you to participate in a system with which you disagree.
The very fact that the winner was chosen by the majority means he is more likely than not the best choice out of those available, and if he isn’t, we can boot him out and try somebody else in two, four, or six years (for representatives, presidents, and senators, respectively).
You seem to be suggesting that elections are either infallible or worthless, and I don’t think it’s that binary. A dial, not a switch.
It isn’t a perfect way of choosing leaders, but it’s better than things like hereditary kingship or whoever has the most money becoming the leader by default. A republic doesn’t give us perfect leaders, a republic makes overthrowing leaders easy and bloodless. is non-violent revolution is called an election.
I disagree that overthrowing poor leaders is “easy” in our system; if it were, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in. Even other elective systems make it easier; parliamentary democracies, for instance. And don’t be so quick to dismiss the concept of a hereditary chief executive with constitutionally-limited powers; such a man can at least be apolitical.
Overthrowing bad leaders is easy; it’s replacing them with somebody better that’s hard.
The British sort of have the best of both worlds. When it comes to running the government, they can be critical, they “throw the bums out,” they can have all the advantages of a republic. And they can be utterly loyal to the Queen. She doesn’t have any power, so there’s no need to overthrow her or replace her.
Come to think of it, it’s much the same in Japan.
Don’t hold your breath over the UK. The Lib Dems in our coalition would decriminalise, but the mere thought of it would terrify all the blue rinse brigade OAPs who run the Tories’ cheese and wines – result stalemate.
The real fear here is that Labour’s neofeminists follow France into the Swedish mess if they come to power either in Westminster or Scotland.
The best way forward would probably be for a latter-day Wolfendon Committee to be set up to examine the evidence. Since the last election the Home Office (our homeland security department) has done sweet FA (which given what it normally does is actually a huge leap forward).
The “Swedish Mess” is some crazy stuff – I was scanning through the archives of the Stockholm News yesterday and found some female pol who was calling for men convicted of purchasing sex to have a special letter sent to their house … in a specially colored envelope … so that the family and everyone living around him would KNOW he either successfully purchased or attempted to purchase sex.
LOL – if they are that angry at sex clients why not just resort to marking them the way Lt. Aldo Raine marked his “Nat-zees” in “Inglorious Basterds”. It would be cheaper.
I don’t know if that law ever got passed though. If you rob a bank in Sweden do you get a colored envelope? LOL. Priorities.
some female pol who was calling for men convicted of purchasing sex to have a special letter sent to their house … in a specially colored envelope … so that the family and everyone living around him would KNOW he either successfully purchased or attempted to purchase sex.
Of course non-client males would never attempt to facilitate sex via money or gifts.
Even the placid Swedes will eventually have enough of this. The Swedish regime used to forcibly sterilize women, and professional boxing was banned; both were ultimately overturned.
The Swedish regime still forcibly sterilises trans people who want to be recognised in the gender they identify as.
Ah the “hang ’em an flog ’em!” blue rinse biddies, the staple diet of the Tory party.
I’ve always said that NuLabour’s knack of getting its politicians (like Dennis MacShane) to align themselves with neofems in order to appear progressive, was a sleazy, yet masterful stroke of genius. Not only do you get the “progressives” in your camp, you also drag in the social conservatives and if that fails, well, there’s always the “think of the children!!!”
“The Bunny Ranch ladies are asking johns to donate money to Paul’s campaign as they leave the brothel.” Um, wouldn’t this pitch be more effective at an earlier point in the proceedings? At this stage the big head is functioning clearly and is much less susceptible to persuasion.
The Bunny Ranch whores considered getting the money for Ron Paul’s campaign before providing their services. They decided against it. They didn’t want to be convicted of insider influence, lack of ethics and political corruption. They decided to leave the insider influence, lack of ethics and political corruption to to the politicians because whores on average are a more moral and ethical people than politicians. A neighbor of mine said that virtually all of your politicians in Washington have been bought and sold more than the most used streetwalker crack whore in the world, and that politicians are more whorish than prostitutes. I agreed. LOL!!! LMAO!!!
…after seeing a group of young men at a local Walmart wearing pajama pants that revealed one young man’s private parts
If there was a young man wandering around town with his private parts exposed, then there are already laws in place (I assume) that deal with people indecently exposing themselves. C’mon now, something smells like bullshit? If people have such an issue with it they should speak to the business owners and ask them not to serve people dressed in such an uncouth manner.
I stopped voting as well, for all the reasons Maggie laid out, plus one (though this may be a subsection of reason #1): I’m not insane. Well, I’m not that insane.
@Krulac,
Obama is not a socialist.
All Democrats are Socialists now, Susan.
Most European “Socialist Parties” aren’t even socialist anymore. The notion that the Democrats, who are to the right of many conservative European parties, are socialists is something that could only be said by someone with a pretty weak grasp of what socialism actually is.
@Maggie,
If you don’t agree with the system as it is, then what system (or non-system) would you replace it with?
Were I the dictatrix, I’d call a new constitutional convention designed to rewrite the document completely so as to eliminate all power-expansion loopholes. I’d write a prohibition against ALL laws governing private behavior firmly into the thing, prohibit any level of government from reaching down into the lower levels, and set one branch of the legislature to working solely at revoking laws. I’d also make all government employees, top to bottom, criminally liable for their actions, and do my best to make it impossible for any group to use the government to rob or rule any other group.
That would do for a start.
Spot on girl. 🙂
Maybe I’ll just write “Maggie McNeil” in on my ballot! 😛
I relish your comments that begin: “Were I the dictatrix…”
They are *incredibly* cute, along with your somehow amiably owlish eye. 😉
The branch that works solely at revoking laws is a damn good idea; and they have their work cut out for them.–
😀
To the people who rail at me for being a Republican party supporter. Realize some things. Even Sean Hannity on Fox News recognized there are 3 factions within the Republican party, the moderates, the conservatives and the libertarians. I’m not a moderate Republican like Romney. I’m not a socially conservative Republican like Santorum nor am I a populist conservative like Gingrich(who is really more moderate than he can admit to himself or others). I am a libertarian Republican like Paul. I have my ideological disagreements with Paul, but consider him ideologically the best candidate.
Paul either has the second highest or highest young adult(18-29) vote in every state thus far. I’m in my mid forties so I’m different here. Paul is much more popular among men than women. I’m a man. Paul is more popular among White people than other races. I’m a White man.. Paul has a plurality of support from actively serving U.S. military and veterans who are out of the military but are Iraq War and Afghanistan War veterans. I’m out of the U.S. Army, but I am an Iraq War and Afghanistan War veteran. Paul seems to be the only Presidential candidate who took his oath to defend the U.S. Constitution as seriously as I did when I was a U.S. Soldier.
Notice among other things which are good about Paul, that he is for letting the states decide how they want to deal with prostitution and not letting the federal government deal with prostitution which is much better than the other 3 candidates who are strict prohibitionists in regards to prostitution. The Democrats aren’t any better on prostitution than the Republicans. Democratic party Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is an example in which he has pushed for the only place where prostitution is legal in the USA, some counties in Nevada, to be completely prohibited. Among most things including prostitution, the libertarian Republicans are the best thing for the people of the USA and the prostitutes too.
“KHorn
“The Bunny Ranch ladies are asking johns to donate money to Paul’s campaign as they leave the brothel.” Um, wouldn’t this pitch be more effective at an earlier point in the proceedings? At this stage the big head is functioning clearly and is much less susceptible to persuasion.”
“doclove
“The Bunny Ranch whores considered getting the money for Ron Paul’s campaign before providing their services. They decided against it. They didn’t want to be convicted of insider influence, lack of ethics and political corruption. They decided to leave the insider influence, lack of ethics and political corruption to to the politicians because whores on average are a more moral and ethical people than politicians. A neighbor of mine said that virtually all of your politicians in Washington have been bought and sold more than the most used streetwalker crack whore in the world, and that politicians are more whorish than prostitutes. I agreed. LOL!!! LMAO!!!”
I hope all this is intended as playful sarcasm. Knowing several of the Bunnies makes me more than a little defensive when I read or hear even the mildest criticism of them.
Rapid,
If your question was directed at me, yes it was meant in jest. In fact it was more a comment on our gender’s remarkable ability to function without a brain when sex is involved. And, once we reach the finsih line, how quickly we seen to recover the ability to think and suddenly make excuses and disappear. Without calling.
Of course this was playful sarcasm. This was against the politicians and not the whores themselves. I’m all for prostitution in Nevada, and wish there would be more laws allowing prostitution across the USA. There was no criticism on my part against the Bunny Ranch prostitutes. The politicians are more likely to screw over the population especially the higher up the hierarchy they go than the whores ever have or likely will. I genuinely regard whores as better than politicians on average.
“There’s definitely cause for hope here. American politicians can ignore New Zealand as an antipodean anomaly, but if Canada and the UK also decriminalize it’s going to be a lot harder for American prohibitionists to convince everyone that theirs is the “normal” view.”
Actually I don’t think it would make any difference. Look what happened when Obama was trying to pass his health care reform. There were all the stories going around about all the problems with universal health care in Canada & Europe. If they decriminalized it there people here would just start pushing the small isolated cases where there were problems with their system and try to make it sound like a major problem.
When Portugal decriminalized all drugs (yes, ALL of them), the prophesies of doom failed to come true. Overdoses went down, not up. Drug-related violence plummeted. Even plain old drug use went down a tiny bit, and a little more among teens and early-twenties.
So why wouldn’t that work in the United States? Because Portugal isn’t a world superpower, of course. (?)
Because Portugal is a small country, and the US is a huge country, so drug decriminalization just wouldn’t work here. (!?)
If the UK and Canada decriminalize prostitution and they don’t vanish in a puff of sin-smoke, well you know the US is a big country, and we’ve got a bunch of states, and there’s a supervolcano under Yellowstone Park, or some other lame excuse.
@Krulac
Let me explain. Obama is neither socialist or capitalist. He’s a *corporatist*, meaning that he endorses the expansion of corporate power over all other areas of life (and death).
Had Obama been a socialist, he would have nationalized failed financial instituions back in 2009 rather than give them a no-strings attached bailout. If he had been a capitalist, he would have done absolutely nothing and let them fail.
The same with the so-called ObamaCare. This scam is not socialist at all. It’s a mechanism for forcing people to to purchase health insurance against their will, which is corporatism at its worst. Why? Health insurance companies are corporations. It’s no different than the bailouts.
I completely agree, though IMHO “corporatist” is a euphemism and I prefer the stronger word: fascist. It’s the one history will use, so we may as well start now.
And as for Ron Paul: he is nothing but a red herring designed to keep disaffected conservatives (and not a few disaffected liberals) working within a system that has no intention of addressing their needs and concerns.
Because at the end of the day, these disaffected conservatives will go to the polls in November and vote for Mitt Romney to get rid of the “socialist” Obama.
On the first item, have a look at this sign which went up recently at a Social Welfare office here in Dublin.
Susan is right about Obama, he’s definitely NOT a socialist. There’s very little socialist influence in American politics today, there are two flavors of corporatist parties, and you see where it’s leading.
I don’t think we will see decriminalization in the USA anytime soon. We’re just not sensible enough, we’re too hostage to the superstitious vote. Look at how many current issues are being influenced by superstition. We just don’t govern logically in the USA, our population isn’t educated enough for that.
And Maggie, I agree, sweat pants aren’t classy. But due to the arthritis that has me in it’s grip these days, I wear them often, because of their lack of buttons, hooks, zippers.
Good to see though that there are no real issues in Louisiana for the politicians to worry over.
Oh, there are real issues; but like politicians everywhere, they prefer to focus on nonsense and nanny-statism.
On the issue of decriminalization, I’ve said before and I’ll say again it will NEVER come in the US via legislation; it will be achieved as civil rights always are in this country, by court order.
Ron Paul’s and Harry Reid’s positions on the legality of prostitution are not in conflict. Paul thinks it should be left up to the states. Currently, it is left up to the states; that’s how Nevada can have it. Reid wants the the state of Nevada to criminalize prostitution. He isn’t asking the US Congress to do it, he’s asking the Nevada state legislature to do it.
And that’s fine with Paul because it isn’t the feds.
So now a store starts selling the exact same garments in its “casual” section, and some store starts feeling a bit rebellious and labels all of the clothing section “sleepwear.”
I wonder where the young folk are on the decriminalization issue? After all, they’re the one who’ll be making the decisions.
Yes and no; if you don’t believe Reid would make a federal law against prostitution if he could, you need to reread his speech.
You’ve got something there.
Which brings up a question: why isn’t there a federal anti-prostitution law? They’re happy to pass other laws that either shouldn’t be passed at all, or should be decided by individual states.
There are a couple of such laws, and the whole “human trafficking” thing is mostly an excuse to use the FBI against them dirty ol’ whores. But there is no specific federal law against prostitution yet, probably for the simple reason they haven’t yet figured out a way to rationalize it to the sheeple under the commerce clause.
Maggie,
Isn’t the Mann Act essentially the federal prostitution prohibition law? I realize that it is only invoked if some part of the activity crosses state lines, but with the US Attorneys’ collective obsession with conspiracy, merely making a phone call to another state would qualify.
In fact, IIRC, Eliot Spitzer faced possible prosecution under Mann, but the AUSA extended professional douche-bag courtesy and didn’t charge him.
Yes, plus there’s one about “prostitution near a military base” and the UCMJ provisions.
Okay, so we’ve covered the idea of voting vs. not voting and Obama the socialist vs. Obama the whatever, but here’s another question. Folks here have been talking about ‘when the plane crashes’. What form do you expect that to take?
Do you foresee a bloodless coup where Walmart just buys the White House and slaps a logo on it? Perhaps a one-sided crackdown a la Libya and Syria? Or a replay of the Civil War with brother against brother killing each other in the streets?
I ask because as a currently serving military member I’d like to know whether I should get out now and go find a way to protect my mother and siblings. A mother who, by the way, thinks I ought to stay in the military 20 years and get a pension. But if everything’s about to go to He**, why bother?
The imminent Apocalypse has been prophesied for thousands of years. All things eventually have to come to an end, but the track record of humanity when it comes to predicting when and how things end sucks big time. I’d almost say that the louder the predictions that the end is nigh, the less you need to worry about it.
Let me reiterate, and more plainly:
Do not make ANY plans on the assumption civilization will end in your lifetime. That’s a good way to wind up like the Adventists; look them up. You should most certainly not not NOT throw away a career and a pension over the exact same apocalyptic bullshit that every generation from before the time of Jesus has engaged in.
Note that we’re still here.
>Folks here have been talking about ‘when the plane crashes’. What form do you expect that to take?
I expect a stepped decline. Something will set it off, either a war with Iran that messes up the flow of oil into the USA, or China will decide to stop loaning us money.. Since we’ve moved almost all our manufacturing out of the USA, that means we won’t be able to get much in the way of manufactured goods. Our “thousand miles supply chain” will prove to be a very bad idea.
The whole financial scam will collapse, and down will come the house of cards, and the phoney money will be evident.
The government will ration oil,gas, and goods. Only government vehicles will have gas, except of course for the private cars, planes and boats of all the CEO’s and 1%.
Store shelves will empty. The government will arrange some food distribution to those it favors.
Many businesses will go under, and people will lose their jobs. There won’t be a revolution, or even much trouble, The government will declare martial law. Things will go on like this for a while,. and may “recover” a bit if the oil flows again quickly or the Chinese forgive our debts.
You’ll see the rich and powerful getting their liquid assets out of here as fast as they can, rats fleeing the sinking ship. Some will hunker down in walled compounds. Even large corporations won’t be able to withstand the collapse, so those at the top will loot what they can and flee.
Local cop squads will realize that they have lots of weapons, like authority and hurting and killing people, and will declare themselves “warlords”. The government will eventually begin withdrawing to Washington, or some bunker. We’ll be on our own.
That’s what I think likely. That’s not what I like. There is perhaps a one in a million chance that enough people will wake up and see what’s coming, and began to prepare and make changes now, but given the general character of Americans, I doubt it seriously.