Discovering that the exclusive international ring of prostitutes known as the "Emperor's Club" charged up to $5,500 an hour for their services, New York governor Eliot Spitzer vowed to put an end to this price gouging practice.
Four people alleged to have run the "Emperor's Club" were charged with conspiracy to violate federal prostitution statutes, while two of them were also charged with laundering more than $1 million in illegal proceeds.
"That kind of excessive compensation is simply outrageous. Prostitution is allegedly a victimless crime, Spitzer said in a press conference that took place only in our imaginations. But now we see that its customers can become its victims.
Spitzer added it was especially shameful that one of the most trusted names in prostitution had engaged in this shocking betrayal and rank greed.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/11/2008 13:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"He would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe - you know - I mean that . . . very basic things."
"Kristen" responded: 'I have a way of dealing with that. . . . I'd be like, 'Listen, dude. You really want the sex?' . . . You know what I mean."
Listen Dude. You really want the sex? That's worth $4300? Kind of a turn-off I'm thinking.
. . . whatever Spitzer -- or, in the language of a federal court filing, "Client-9" -- did with a petite brunette nicknamed "Kristen" on the eve of Valentine's Day last month at Washington's Mayflower Hotel, it probably wasn't as monstrous as what he asked his wife to do yesterday.
In the grand tradition of Larry Craig, David Vitter and Jim McGreevey, Spitzer dragged his partner of 21 years before the television cameras at his offices in New York to announce that he was "disappointed" in himself for unspecified sins.
Silda Wall Spitzer looked like a victim of food poisoning as she stood by her man's side. She cast her eyes downward at the 183-word statement while he read it. She raised her glance only briefly, when the governor admitted he had "acted in a way that violates my obligation to my family," when he offered an apology "to the public, whom I promised better," and again when he pledged to "dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family."
The silent Mrs. Spitzer -- Harvard law school graduate, corporate lawyer, nonprofit founder and mother of the governor's three daughters -- then led Client 9 away from the lectern.
Fortunately for Mrs. Spitzer, the ordeal lasted only 67 seconds, and the governor, his forehead shining under the TV lights, took no questions. Unfortunately for Mr. Spitzer, this left unchallenged a rather lurid account of the events of last month at the Mayflower in the federal prosecutors' filing . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
03/11/2008 12:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I will never understand why these wives allow themselvs to be used as pathetic props for the obligatory news conference. Better that they refused, making the asshole stand there by himself, or took the opportunity to do a quick knee to the groin and storm off.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2008 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
You do have to wonder why smart, worldly women like her (and Hillary, and others) allow themselves to be humiliated like this. My suggestions to her would have been along the lines of stay at home, change the locks on the door, empty the bank accounts, toss his clothes onto the street -- and then issue a short press statement.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2008 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
My guess is that she is hoping to negotiate support and trust funds for the daughters from his family, in exchange for her discretion.
That and she just found out about the whole d*mn thing a few hours before. Shock.
#5
You do have to wonder why smart, worldly women like her (and Hillary, and others) allow themselves to be humiliated like this.
Ah come on. You think they look for the decent guy who is not the center of attention or wearing the power suit or 'up and coming'? Each element of discrimination [income, profession, height, etc] further and further restricts the available population. When you put together the elements of selection, how can they put on the show of surprise and astonishment?
#6
Many of these marriages are more about power and prestige than love and family. Mrs. Spitzer (does she have a first name?) knows the drill and followed it.
One might call it Shakespearian if there were a shred of nobleness in the story of Eliot Spitzer's fall. There is none. Governor Spitzer, who made his career by specializing in not just the prosecution, but the ruin, of other men, is himself almost certainly ruined. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
03/11/2008 12:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The headline a parapraxis on the part of the WJS?
Confronts a real enemy, but abuses his power in pursuit of that enemy, taking down the innocent and creating a poisonous climate of fear. "The ruin of other men", indeed.
Joseph McCarthy?
NO!
Eliot Spitzer.
Wonder if the MSM will draw the analogy.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/11/2008 20:45 Comments ||
Top||
#1
*sigh*
Why do minor infractions of the law require such heavy handed administration but world class creeps and criminals who steal billions get a pass?
Grim-faced border guards and tough security measures at international airports provide powerful reassurance that the developed world is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to protect against terrorism. But is it worth it?
Although citizens of rich countries regard terrorism as one of the world's greatest threats, transnational terrorists take, on average, just 420 lives each year. So, have the terrorists succeeded in getting the developed world to invest poorly in counterterrorism, while ignoring more pressing problems involving health, the environment, conflict and governance?
Recently, Copenhagen Consensus, whose purpose is to weigh the costs and benefits of different solutions to the world's biggest problems, commissioned new research into the merits of different methods of combating terrorism. The results are surprising and troubling.
Global annual spending on homeland security measures has increased by about $70 billion since 2001. Unsurprisingly, this initially translated into a 34 percent drop in transnational terrorist attacks. What is surprising is that there have been 67 more deaths, on average, each year. The rise in the death toll is caused by terrorists responding rationally to the higher risks imposed by greater security measures. They have shifted to attacks that create more carnage to increase the impact of fewer attacks.
Mr. Lomborg and Mr. Sandler, both smart men, ignore one key, cost-effective anti-terrorism measure: raising the cost to terrorists by hunting them down. You can do that the more direct American way -- killing them -- or the softer European way, getting Interpol on them and then locking them up for a few years. Either way raises the 'cost' of terrorism by forcing them to consider the possibility of death and loss of freedom. As it turns out, many terrorists, and most of the big shots, turn out to be quite rational when confronted with this cost. It's why the Hamas bigs hide in Damascus, as one example.
There's no question that attacking terrorism on other fronts, such as their financial transactions, is useful, and we need to do more of it. But we have one key way to drive home the risk to the terrorists: hunt them down.
Increased counterterrorism measures simply transfer terrorists' attention elsewhere. Installing metal detectors in airports in 1973 decreased skyjackings but increased kidnappings; fortifying American embassies reduced the number of attacks on embassies but increased the number of assassinations of diplomats. Since counterterrorism measures were increased in Europe, the United States and Canada, there has been a clear shift in attacks against US interests to the Middle East and Asia.
Spending ever-more money making targets "harder" is actually a poor choice. Increasing defensive measures worldwide by 25 percent would cost at least $75 billion over five years. Terrorists will inevitably shift to softer targets. In the extremely unlikely scenario that attacks dropped by 25 percent, the world would save about $22 billion. Even then, the costs are three times higher than the benefits.
Put another way, each extra dollar spent increasing defensive measures will achieve - at most - about 30 cents of return. We could save about 105 lives a year in this best-case scenario. To put this into context, 30,000 lives are lost annually on US highways.
Contrary to the effect of increased defensive measures, fostering greater international cooperation to cut off terrorists' financing would be relatively cheap and quite effective. This would involve greater extradition of terrorists and clamping down on the charitable contributions, drug trafficking, counterfeit goods, commodity trading and illicit activities that allow them to carry out their activities.
While this approach would do little to reduce the number of small events, such as "routine" bombings or political assassinations, it would significantly impede the spectacular attacks that involve a large amount of planning and resources.
The increase in international cooperation that this approach requires would be difficult to achieve, because nations jealously guard their autonomy over police and security matters. A single non-cooperating nation could undo much of others' efforts.
The advantages, though, would be substantial. Doubling the Interpol budget and allocating one-tenth of the International Monetary Fund's yearly financial monitoring and capacity-building budget to tracing terrorist funds would cost about $128 million annually. Stopping one catastrophic terrorist event would save the world at least $1 billion. The benefits could be 10-times higher than the costs.
Another option is for target nations to think more laterally in their approach to counterterrorism. Some observers argue that the US - a key target - could do more to project a positive image and negate terrorist propaganda. This could be achieved in part by reallocating or increasing foreign assistance. Currently, the US gives only 0.17 percent of its gross net income as official development assistance - the second-smallest share among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries - and aid is highly skewed toward countries supporting the US foreign policy agenda. By expanding humanitarian aid with no strings attached, the US could do more to address hunger, disease and poverty, while reaping improving its standing and lowering terror risks.
However, we provide a lot of other benefits that should be taken into the equation: as one example, our military ensures open seas which contributes to trade, and trade does far more than direct foreign aid to assist poor countries.
We do not advocate conceding to terrorists' demands; rather, we recommend that foreign policy be smarter and more inspirational. There is no panacea for terrorism. That in itself is scary. However, we should not allow fear to distract us from the best ways to respond. Nor should fear stop us from saving many more lives by spending the money on less-publicized issues facing the planet.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ION,BIGNEWSNETWORK > GEN. JOHN KELLY > AL QAEDA IS PLANNING A NEW LARGE ATTACK: IRAQI, US TROOPS GETTING READY. A "LARGE MEDIA-STYLE/CENTRIC EVENT"???
Kelly indics in article that AQ is now going after SHEIKS, SUNNI Leaders, + lower-level public officials e.g. Mayors, NO LONGER AGZ US OR IRAQI SOLDIERS.
Also from BIGNEWSNETWORK > THE DESTRUCTION OF IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME IS "GOOD FOR ARABS".
#2
By expanding humanitarian aid with no strings attached, the US could do more to address hunger, disease and poverty, while reaping improving its standing and lowering terror risks.
If we were just good Dhimmi and pay the protection tax (Jizya) in humiliation, accept second class status, and let Hamas handle our children's education like we should - all will be better.
#4
Leave it to the EUnicks to figure the cost of lives down to the cent, and then argue against spending those cents. Is there anything europe wouldn't sell for MONEY? They have already traded away their national identities, ethnic consciousness, personal rights, and dignity all in the name of trade and money, can't they at least keep their lives?
Posted by: ed ||
03/11/2008 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Given that the jihadis are going to attack anyway, we have a choice: submit completely or fight to the death. Either way we will pay whatever it costs. Any half measures are submission in slow motion, which is simply a more expensive way to achieve the same result.
But y'all go ahead and stop hardening your targets. I b'lieve our military people refer to that as the Flypaper Strategy. It's worked well for us in Iraq, although the natives aren't keen on the price they've paid.
#7
Yeah - I mean, just let a few attacks through every year. The cost in lives is much less than automobile accidents, and certainly this would result in a much more accomodating political environment (for the terrorists). Let's all listen to "Copenhangen Consensus" for our security needs from now on!
#8
Cost of a giant hole in lower Manhattan. The shut down of markets for weeks. The rerouting of airline traffic for weeks. Cost in lives. Impact upon the national economy. The cost of recovery. etc, etc, etc.
You can save all the hand wringing cost if you eradicate the environment [and all those in the environment] without mercy. It can actually be done cheaper than what we're doing now. However, this is the price of a 'Kinder Gentler' warfare. Lots of defense and hassle and limited offensive. Yes it is more expensive. Your alternative of surrender is not an option.
#9
Terrorists will inevitably shift to softer targets.
Geebus, this one statement disqualifies these goons from any protection. Of course, terrorists strike "soft targets", ya moron. They do it, not because it's just easier, but it holds more psychological impact.
For example, just look at 9/11. More people were shocked by the WTC attack ("soft target") than the Pentagon ("hardened target"). Not that I agree with EITHER attack, but an attack on a nation's military is at least "quasi-legitimate". Intentionally targetting "soft targets" (e.g. civilians) is what the jihadis do best. They're not exactly standing in line to attack Ft. Knox (a "high cost" target), but find it more convenient to strike your neighborhood mall.
Currently, the US gives only 0.17 percent of its gross net income as official development assistance - the second-smallest share among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries - and aid is highly skewed toward countries supporting the US foreign policy agenda.
Ah, I was waiting for more U.N. claptrap. Of course, you can cite percentages 'til the cows come home, but when 0.17% of our income equals $20 billion+ (assuming 0.17% of a $10 trillion/year GDP), that's still #1 worldwide and FAR outpasses the next closest "donor." And, as others noted, that doesn't even include all the "second-hand aid" we give these nations in terms of markets, trade, buying their cheap, lead-based paint toys, etc.
Posted by: BA ||
03/11/2008 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Yeah - I mean, just let a few attacks through every year.
Nothing new, really. The 'acceptable level of violence' school has been around for ages.
It's when it gets past the advocates' watchdogs and guards, and into their gated communities that it becomes a problem.
#11
Although citizens of rich countries regard terrorism as one of the world's greatest threats, transnational terrorists take, on average, just 420 lives each year.
...and as long Bjorn and Todd aren't amongst them, they think that's...okay.
#12
This would involve greater extradition of terrorists and clamping down on the charitable contributions, drug trafficking, counterfeit goods, commodity trading and illicit activities that allow them to carry out their activities.
It is both/and not either/or in my estimation.
Indeed, we seem to be doing both, AFAICT.
#13
"No panacea for terrorism"? We haven't broken the seals off the napalm cannisters yet. Some of us would like harsher measures taken.
As for an assessment of resource use in GWOT. They have NOT been well allocated because our leaders chose to indulge "political islam," with the expectation that Muslim voters would support counter terror measures, and respect non-Muslims. Can't happen for reasons stated in the koran, and applicable to ALL Muslims: "jihad is prescribed to you." Muslims want us dead; our leaders want them in our neighborhoods.
#14
sad, because Lomborg's been doing yeoman's work as a Glowball Warmening skeptic.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2008 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#15
By expanding humanitarian aid with no strings attached, the US could do more to address hunger, disease and poverty, while reaping improving its standing and lowering terror risks.
Um... considering we already do and the US is the biggest giver of humanitarian aid in the world, and most of the terrorist leaders come from well-to-do families I would say your "root cause" argument is full of bullshit.
Fuck off and we will continue to kill the terrorists as we see fit.
Our enemies' theory of victory depends almost completely on exploiting our self-inflicted delusions.
HERE ARE some new rules in which "we" represents such disparate forces as Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, Iraqi insurgents, al-Qaida, Syria, the Taliban and others, including radical Arab nationalists.
These forces are not all alike or allied, but do often follow a parallel set of rules quite different from how international affairs have generally been conducted.
1. We'll never give up. No matter what you do, we will continue fighting. No matter what you offer, we will keep attacking you. Since you can't win, you should give up.
2. We're indifferent to any pressure you put on us. We will turn this pressure against you. Against us, deterrence does not exist; diplomacy does not convince.The carrot cannot buy us off, nor the stick make us yield. There are no solutions that can end the conflict. You cannot win militarily, nor make peace through diplomacy.
3. If you set economic sanctions, we'll say you are starving our people in an act of "collective punishment." Moreover, sanctions will cost you money and generate opposition among those who lose profits.
4. In response to military operations, we'll attack your civilians. Casualties will undermine your internal support. We will try to force you to kill civilians accidentally. We won't care, but will use this to persuade many that you are evil. Thus we will simultaneously murder your civilians and get you condemned as human rights violators.
5. If you try to isolate us we will use your own media and intellectuals against you. At times, we will hint at moderation and make promises of change. We won't do so enough to alienate our own followers, but enough to subvert yours. They will demand you engage us, which means you making concessions for nothing real in exchange.
6. Talking to our own people, we will foment hatred and demonize you. Speaking to the West, we will accuse you of fomenting hatred. We will hypocritically turn against you all the concepts you developed: racism, imperialism, failure to understand the "other," and so on. These concepts, of course, describe what we are doing, but your feelings of guilt, ignorance about us, and indifference to ideology will make you fail to notice that fact.
7. We will claim to be victims and "underdogs." Because you are stronger and more "advanced," that means you are the villains. We are not held responsible for our deeds, or expected to live up to the same standards. There will be no shortage of, to quote Lenin, "useful idiots" in your societies to help echo our propaganda.
8. Since our societies are weak, undemocratic and have few real moderates, you will have to make deals with phoney moderates and dictatorial regimes weakened by corruption and incompetence.
9. Even the less radical regimes, often our immediate adversaries, partly play into our hands. Due to popular pressure - plus their desire to mobilize support and distract attention from their own shortcomings - they trumpet Arab and Islamic solidarity. They denounce the West, blame all problems on Israel and revile America, even as they accept your aid. They glorify interpretations of Islam not too far from ours. They cheer Iraqi insurgents, Hizbullah, and Hamas. They don't struggle against Iran getting nuclear weapons. They lay the basis for our mass support and recruits.
10. There is no diplomatic solution for you, though you yearn to find one. There is no military solution for you, whether you try that or not. You love life, we love death; you are divided, we are united; you want to get back to material satisfaction, we are dedicated revolutionaries.
We will outlast you.
Finally, our greatest weapon is that you truly don't understand all the points made above. You are taught, informed, and often led by people who simply don't comprehend what an alternative, highly ideological, revolutionary world view means.
#3
1) you will if you're dead
2) you have no national resources, if Israel chooses to cut off water and power, you'll die - see #1
3) OK - we'll survive
4) Israel needs to do better and recording and publicisizing the Paleo (and Hezbollah) use of human shields to influence public opinion
5) Get beyond the "hudna" - Hamas and the PA are responsible for ALL activities conducted under their respectable "umbrella gov'ts". Either you control/answer the consequences for/ or you aren't a "government" in any definition of the word
6) you already do - that won't change, there will just be less of you
7) Underdogs die all the time. You will too
8) see #5 - you have nobody that represents "all of you" - there's nobody to negotiate with, hence, you all die
9) Hokay - once you are gone, there will be no more scapegoating
10) Let the bombing and utility shutoff comence. You'll all be Egyptians soon, and unwelcome ones
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2008 19:18 Comments ||
Top||
This reminded me of this article posted by John Frum, about indian army members having to deal with suicidal abused donkeys in sudan, and his comment about the endemic cruelty against animals in the muslim world.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
