>LMAO: Looking at the body of law

>John McCain and Barack Obama are missing some really critical issues. Are they clueless, or is it a bipartisan conspiracy to keep certain issues away from the public debate? One such issue was brought to my attention recently when a judge threw out a rape charge where the victim was a prostitute. According to the judge, the case should have been brought as a theft of service. (I sense you are already starting to grin, but there’s more.)

Seems that the john hired the whore for the usual services – or maybe unusual services, I really don’t know – but regardless, at the end of the performance of service the guy pulled out a gun and demanded that she perform similar services on some of his friends without further compensation. (Where these guys standing around watching?)

Now, I know a lot of feminists have a rather expanded definition of rape (unless committed by liberal Democrat politicians). I have heard, with my own ears, a National Organization of Women activist say that construction workers giving the “wolf whistle” to boob and bum emphasizing women is “tantamount to rape”. Personally, I think her comment is tantamount to man-hating hyperbole.

I am just not politically correct enough to equate the action of our john, as bad as it was, with the guy who drags an innocent co-ed into the bushes and brutally beats and assaults her, or the pervert who lures an 11-year-old into his rusty van to force her to perform oral sex. I sort of like the theft of service angle.

I suppose it is possible to rape a prostitute in the midst of her rendering some service, I’m just not sure how that happens. Let’s say a guy agrees to pay the hooker for the service de jour. She performs, he gets full satisfaction. After the fact, he refuses to pay because he is a jerk. Did he commit rape? Or was it a theft of service? And, can you even steal an illegal service? That is what the judge was grappling with.

Lets look at it another way. Is it possible to grab a prostitute on the street, force her to provide any one of her standard services, and then avoid a rape charge by giving her $100 after the fact?

This also makes me wonder whether a john is obligated to pay if the services were unsatisfactory, or not performed properly. What if, at the climax of the encounter, he did not? When I worked as Sears we had a “satisfaction guaranteed or your money back” policy. Does that apply to the sex trade? I assume you are starting to appreciate the importance of these questions.

Maybe we should ask Eliot Spitzer for his professional opinion on this matter. Not only is the former Governor of New York, and a one-time federal prosecutor, but he was a regular procurer of prostitutes for personal pleasure.

(The way Democrats handle sex scandals, I’m surprised Spitzer was not on Obama’s short list for Vice President. To what am I referring? Think Bill “nothing like a good cigar” Clinton, Ted “the champion of Chappaquiddick” Kennedy, Gerry “thank heaven for little boys” Studds and Barney “pimps on the public payroll” Franks. Despite MAJOR scandals, all these guys continued to receive homage from their Democrat colleagues.)

But, I digress.

So where are McCain and Obama on this issue? I suspect these questions could affect more people than all the house foreclosures and bankruptcies combined. Geez! Sometimes our leaders have no sense of priorities.

>REACT: Spitzer and the (very) happy Hooker

>Sex scandal brings down another public hypocrite. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is history … toast … soon to be yesterday’s news. I am sure being Governor of New York causes a lot of tension. And what is a guy to do? You have to get away sometime. You have to blow off that tension. We don’t need any scientific reports to know that “doing it” is one great way to do it.

There are four facets of the Spitzer affair that caught my attention – and pay special attention to number 4.

1. It is not about the sex. It is about the cover up and the hypocrisy. Going around in public with a holier than thou attitude while sleazing around in private is a no-no. We do not like people giving us sanctimonious lectures while ignoring their own advice. I think that is why Bill Clinton is still popular with the public. He never went around say thou shalt not do this or that. Yeah, he lied about the sex, but he never said he wasn’t a sex addict or a liar.

2. It is the cover up that does you in. Part and parcel of any hypocrisy is the cover up. It is the use of false identities that could land Spitzer in court with a criminal indictment. The only real legal consequence of the sex is a possible date with his wife in divorce court. As noted before, all the scandal befallen public figures faced justice on the basis of the cover up … not the sex. Way back when British Secretary of State for War John Profumo was booted, it was not because of his dalliance with showgirl Christine Keeler (also the mistriss of a Russion spy) but for lying to Parliament. Richard Nixon was not culpable for the break-in at the Watergate by his over zealous friends, but for the cover up. Even Bill Clinton survived the sex scandal(s), but was rebuked, impeached and had his law license suspended for the attempted cover up – that little matter of perjury.

3. $80,000 DOLLARS!!!! I have never engaged the services of a prostitute. In fact, I have always thought it was more an admission of failure and inferiority, than a demonstration of macho virility. Intellectually, I can understand why some men may engage the services of a sexual gratification professional. What is beyond my comprehension is the price Spitzer paid. His total dollars-for-dolls expenditure exceeds $80,000, according to reports.

The call-girl operation he chose is no doubt exclusive. At prices ranging from $1000 to $4000 an hour, I am amazed they have any customers at all. Even rich people cannot be that desperate and that stupid – and that incapable of seducing the wife of some judge. The sex service rates should be a monthly retainer, not an hourly fee. So, in addition to Spitzer being a philanderer, a money launderer and a patron of illegal prostitutes, he suffers the ultimate humiliation of being one super-sized sucker – or in his case suckee.

4. Tripped up by the IRS. Now comes the real scary part. Allow me to quote from the Associated Press article.

The case involving Spitzer started when banks noticed frequent cash transfers from several accounts and filed suspicious activity reports with the Internal Revenue Service, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press. The accounts were traced back to Spitzer , leading public corruption investigators to open an inquiry.

Go back and read that again. (pause)

Okay, let’s go on now. Spitzer’s bank … the bank holding the PERSONAL accounts of the Governor of New York City … noticed some “cash transfers” and filed a “suspicious activity report” with the Internal Revenue Service.

There are a bunch of murky rules that require banks to inform “Big Brother” about certain types of transactions by depositors. These could include the deposit or withdrawal of cash – and the amounts do not have to be huge. They can tattle on you if you transfer money in and out of the country. You are limited in the amount of cash you can have in your pocket when you go in or out of the country.

According to the government snoops, cash is the currency of crooks. If you deal in a lot of case, you must be a crook. That’s the reasoning. The mere presence of cash in your pocket in an amount greater than some bureaucrats deem necessary is enough to cause government’s evil eye of suspicion to stare down upon you. Actually, you don’t need to have it in your pocket. Just tranfer cash to places, people or in amounts unacceptable to the government and you, too, can be the subject of a “suspicious activity report.”

The problem with much of law enforcement and prosecution is that once they suspect you of something, they are determined to prove it with the full resources at their disposal. I am not saying Sptizer did not do something wrong and did not deserve his comeuppence, but I would rather have had him go undetected than to have the banks and the IRS eroding the cherished freedoms we were all intended to enjoy.

Philandering and hypocritical politicians maybe lead us to worry a bit. It is nothing, however, compared to the horror of the government monitoring how we use our hard-earned money. Of the latter you can be afraid … be very afraid.

Footnote: The above photo was taken as Spitzer was responding to the question, “Did you give the girls anything besides money?”