The Jersey whore who has become famous overnight has been offered enormous deals from Hustler, Penthouse, is making money from the downloads of her sluttish, normally untalented song.
Why should she get rich for breaking the law. The FBI used Spitzer's dalliances with her to break him. But there are laws against her prostitution and now she looks like she'll make a fortune off her notoriety. Aren't there laws against this?
Frankly, I oppose laws against prostitution. It is a behavior, like drug abuse, that can ruin people, but so can drinking alcohol or gambling. We have too many crimes on the books.
But since it is a crime and since this woman was used by the Bush admin FBI to bring down a Democratic leader with presidential potential, I don't want to see the woman rewarded. I want to see her receive equal justice.
Failure to give her the full attention of the law, failure to prevent her from being massively rewarded, will create a precedent for future gotcha setups by rogue government agencies that have been taken over by partisan leaderships.
I should be clear. Spitzer was an ass and a fool to do what he did to his family, his career. But that's just part of the picture.
************
Update: After reading 30+ comments, mostly disagreeing with me, here's where I lay this out a bit more, having had some more time to think about it.
The TV news had just announced that Hustler and Penthouse were in a bidding war, exceeding a million dollars. My posting above was almost a kneejerk reaction to it, certainly only partly formed. So here's a longer take on it.
I see Spitzer as a tragic hero-- one who has taken on and beaten some of the most powerful corporate tyrants and criminals, who has incurred their enmity and revenge. This girl who was a pawn has the potential to become a celebrity, a star.
No, I'm no Simon, from American Idol, though I've run a record company. But I don't want girls to think that if they're lucky, they can live in fancy NY city digs, make tens of thousands a week, become millionaires, if they become .... whores. Oh. You don't like that word, not nice enough. How about boy toys, pay for play boy bling, love kittens... whatever. She sells her body to a guy old enough to be her father-- perhaps not as despicable as a general who lies for his commander in chief, like Colin Powell, or Bush appointees who de-regulate or ignore regulations in industries where failure to regulate leads to death or environmental damage. These people are also whores. I used the word whore because it IS an ugly word, and that is what the young lady is.
But Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky led to a generation that was enamored with and fascinated with oral sex. Not necessarily a terrible thing, but clearly an unintended consequence of the mediaization and publicizing of the circumstances of Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky.
I don't want to see a new generation grow up romanticizing and glorifying the success and fame of Eliot Spitzer's whore. Already, I'm sure that the body workers who serviced the other numbers on the list on which Spitzer was number nine, are disappointed that THEY have not been so "lucky" to be THE ONE to get all the attention. I expect soon enough, other women who serviced Spitzer will come forward, trying to jump on the Penthouse, Hustler, celibrity gravy train.
I would rather the narrative be that this women was a victim, that she was used by Spitzer and the FBI and the pimps who sold her services and that she was a loser in the deal, that selling her body, her self esteem, her integrity was a losing proposition. That's the message I'd like to see become the predominant narrative that unfolds from this story.
Yes, I do agree that prostitution should not be a crime. Prostitutes should register, get checked regularly for health and there should never be circumstances where sex slaves, like today's MSNBC is exploiting for it's titillating nature, as a tie in to this Spitzer story, are abused against their will.
I don't want teenagers, glued to their TVs following the latest personal failings and crises of Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan, to see Miss Ashley Alexandra Dupre as a heroic, inspiring role model.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
Or check the archived interviews at:
whiterosesociety.org
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Why do you care? Prostitution and the women who end up in the business is a complex subject. I personally think it should be legalized, but that is unlikely to happen in hypocritical America. Spitzer should not get charged, but neither should the woman. If men didn't want what hookers provide, there would be no hookers. Spitzer was an idiot and got what he deserved. If she gets offers from Penthouse and the like--so what? It's all part of the same old American thing of using sex to sell everything. She isn't the problem, it's the system we live in that considers sex a commodity. I mean, she's just doing what every advertiser does at one time or the other--using the female body and the promise of sex to sell something.
by
Ron Jacobs (57 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 9:42:21 AM
Sorry Rob, but you're way off-base here. Bush FBI or not, Spitzer did this to himself and was caught because of the money trail - this wasn't a sex sting and the prostitute was not his regular - she was just the last in a string. For me - and a lot of people - it's not the sexual morality issue that's the key with Spitzer, it's the hypocrisy, lack of regard for consequences, sheer political and personal hubris involved, and especially the disregard for his own family. As you say, prostitution should not be a crime - although pimping should be because of its exploitative nature - and just because a liberal Dem was the one caught in the sting, this woman shouldn't be forced to wear a scarlet A. Of all the corporate crooks and armchair murderers and trivial entertainers who make outrageous amounts of money in this society, why pick on someone whose life is a struggle and who entered a lousy profession to survive? If the American system is crazy enough to let her come out of this with some positives, then let her. Should no prostitute be allowed to earn money from, for instance, publishing her memoirs about "crimes" she committed? Spitzer was an ass and whether or not he got what he deserved, he got what he was asking for - to tinge the prostitute with the politics of the situation is unfair.
by
Barton Kunstler (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 9:44:09 AM
What Spitzer did, in a civilized society, should be between Spitzer and Mrs. Spitzer and the commercial ladies in question. If you think differently, then you should be for government regulation of abortion, and for impeaching Bill Clinton. What people do with their bodies is their own business, whether they are politicians or lawyers or op-ed columnists or have respectable and productive professions.
Why shouldn't this woman make make money out of this juicy scandal that entertains fools?
by
Ami Isseroff (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 9:52:26 AM
I would imagine that this woman was just doing her job and was not part of a conspiracy to take Shpritzer down. In the context of corporate capitalism I see no reason for her to be disallowed to be an entre manure; afterall most politicians prostitute themselves to the corporations and are hugely rewarded. We have a really peverse standard for who is rewarded financially in America. Why single her out? In another direction wii they prosecute all her other clients? I am against selective prostitution.
by
robert braunstein (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 50 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:01:16 AM
Part of the media frenzy concerning the Spitzer affair is moulding a complete narrative that includes a multi-layered moralistic analysis: poor, desolute, abused prostitute....
The Booboisie is so off base on this one: more enjoyable to sit back and soak up all of America's contradictions, hypocrisies, double standards, myths, sex differences, class distinctions, limits, and inanity....but the moral narrative needs to play out. The whole case as well as the legalisms it is based on are predicated on that moral narrative, however laughable...
by
Constance Lavender (44 articles, 0 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 157 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:06:31 AM
I *really* don't understand. She may indeed be charged criminally. That has nothing to do with her right to make money off her life experience or her criminal actions. Sometimes there are statutes that bar certain convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes, but she hasn't been convicted. I'm unaware of laws prohibiting sex workers from profiting from crimes associated with their business that they are convicted of--maybe there are some, maybe not.
I also don't understand why you used the most demeaning term you could have for her behavior, and she didn't/doesn't "belong to" Spitzer as your phrase implies.
If you're wanting her to behave in the way you believe would be most "ethical" for her to behave in this situation or for her to recognize that she was a pawn, your choice of language is not very persuasive: insulting? yes; persuasive, no. If you're wanting the prosecutors to charge her, you probably tickled their fancies but not much more than that. And you surely know that historically, the pattern has been to go after the prostitutes, not their customers, so if you're wanting the public to rise up in outrage at the unfairness of going after Spitzer while not going after her, the prosecutors are at least reversing that history--I doubt it'll generate much outrage at the unfairness of going after him but not her (as far as we know).
How about a good post about regulating prostitution, making it illegal to accept money for sex without registering for a license and getting regular health checks, etc.?
And as a prelude, let's hear more about Cheney's (& others') use of prostitution, in violation of the law?
Mercy! I didn't mean to get into all this--I truly just didn't understand the purpose of your post. Sorry.
by
jf (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:09:03 AM
I add my own disapproval of your assertion that the woman should be prosecuted. Two wrongs do not make something right. In addition, I disdain your referring to her as a whore. Frankly, the word is disgusting and should be removed from the language. I find it rather like calling a woman a bitch. Spitzer has proved himself a fool. No, an arrogant fool, just like Clinton. Both clearly should have understood that there were people out there who would take them down, even if evidence had to be fabricated. Why give someone the goods? In a situation where a reasonably bright woman has made the informed decision to be paid for doing something she may enjoy, her crime is victimless. Spitzer's was not. He has maliciously harmed his wife and children. He wasn't sorry for what he did. He was sorry that he got caught. So am I.
Gug
by
JGug1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:12:20 AM
In a situation where a reasonably bright woman has made the informed decision to be paid for doing something she may enjoy, her crime is victimless. Spitzer's was not. He has maliciously harmed his wife and children.
How is screwing a married man -- and "Kristen" must surely have known that some of the men she serviced were married, if not Governor Spitzer specifically -- not a victimless crime if, as you say, such crimes are not victimless if the man is married?
by
Dana Pico (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 135 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 2:58:55 PM
This is not about prostitution, nor about sex. Whenever sex rears its ugly head, Americans go SCREECHING in terror to the hills. Read this excerpt from Greg Palast; "And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced. Do I believe the banks called Justice and said, “Take him down today!” Naw, that’s not how the system works. But the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party. Headlines in the financial press – one was “Wall Street Declares War on Spitzer” - made clear to Bush’s enforcers at Justice who their number one target should be. And it wasn’t Bin Laden.It was the night of February 13 when Spitzer made the bone-headed choice to order take-out in his Washington Hotel room. He had just finished signing these words for the Washington Post about predatory loans: “Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.”Bush, Spitzer said right in the headline, was the “Predator Lenders’ Partner in Crime.” The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet.Spitzer wrote, “When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favorably.” But now, the Administration can rest assured that this love story – of Bush and his bankers - will not be told by history at all – now that the Sheriff of Wall Street has fallen on his own gun."
by
Guajolotl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:14:09 AM
The woman is repugnant. As an actress and director I find it appalling that this new casting couch of powerful men, is a way to stardom.
But believe me the IRS is the attack dog of the FBI. Historically anytime the FBI is too lazy to find a way to take anyone down they do it through the IRS. Even if the IRS never finds anything they can harrass with impunity.
So she was getting $1000 and up a roll. Did she report it? ALL OF IT? The FBI has phone records of all of those yum yum girls.
I wondered if Ashley or Kristin or what ever her name really is was an informer. Whores are used for cover in secret operations. Notice all those Arab terrorists and guys like Tim McVeigh meeting at a cat house for a lap dance the night before a big event? The CIA covers calls through porn sites. One reason covert ops people use prostitutes is because whores are not supposed to see anything. The girl does not always know it but since she is the most blackmailable and also the most expebdable she gets leaned on really hard
People who pay money to these human blow up dolls pay for discretion especially the high priced models.
Spitzer's dolly has a big mouth. She sang all right.
Don't worry Rob. I fear nature has a way of taking care of this. It is an ugly story from start to finish
siriusss
by
siriusss (4 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 72 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:16:00 AM
Often what siriuss and Palast said is true and I agree, Spitzer was in Wall Street's and Bush's sights. We knew that before any of this happened. Spitzer had to know it too. So why in the hell did he inflate his head to the size of a beach ball and stick it up over the radar with a big "Look at me!" sign on it? This particular prostitute was just the latest and the one he happened to be caught with. Few things feel worse than giving your enemies satisfaction with your own fall and Spitzer must be pathological in some way to offer them this opportunity. I despise everything about Bush and his cronies but if everyone and their mother knows that prostitution leaves you politically vulnerable, and you've got countless powerful enemies...well, the guy behaved like an idiot. Time to look ahead - the new gov looks like he might be the man to do a terrific job. There's a big difference between being governor and being AG. And as one article says today, there are certainly second acts in America. Spitzer will find one and if "Kristen" does too, well, let the "chimes of freedom" flash for her as well - they're equal opportunity employers.
by
Barton Kunstler (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:30:46 AM
There's no doubt about a lot of what you say. I just don't like the idea of a prostitute, used, even without her conscious cooperation, to take down a political person, should not be rewarded, should not get cut any slack. It's a way to encourage the FBI and partisans operating within government to do more of the same.
On the other hand, there's a lot of truth to what you and many of the commenters here have said.
Regardless, it doesn't feel right that she should become a millionaire because she indulged Spitzer's sex addiction. Dope dealers are not rewarded for providing drugs to famous clients.
I don't think prostitution should be illegal and don't feel that drug use should be illegal either. But I also don't think that the people who prey upon addicts should be rewarded.
by
Rob Kall (728 articles, 3775 quicklinks, 311 diaries, 1521 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 1:05:00 PM
If I understand correctly Elliot Spitzer over an eight year period made eight transactions for a total of 80K that were red flagged by the banking system. This amount of money over such a long period of time would under normal circumstances never lead to wiretapping and a full fledged investigation. It is akin to spending a million dollars to catch the person who stole a newspaper.
I am never a conspiracy theorist but in this case I have my suspicions. Spitzers powerful enemies had him under scrutiny and someone dropped a dime in the right ear to get the ball rolling.
It is very likely that half of Washington and most of corporate America in one form or another enlist the services of escort services. Lets see if the investigation reveals numbers 1 through 8 and the additional numbered clients after Spitzer.
The wealthy and powerful pay big money for sex because they expect privacy ergo the 5k call girl. If this was not just chacter assination of Spitzer she should come forward and reveal her other political clients.
by
Philip Knab (0 articles, 14 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:21:46 AM
I don't give a ra about prostitution and all of that in that I think it should be legal, etc. etc.../.but it is not...and therefore I think if anyone should be punished-it need include all involved parties...including the Jersey girl...wanna be singer "I am not a monster"...chick.
It isn't Her fault that he did what he did...that is not at issue.
The issue is that both parties committed a crime...and they both need to answer to it.
I don't agree with Rob about the fact that being published in Hustler, Playboy or the like is a reward...Gross. If that is a reward in our society...that is one messed up society. Of course my tongue is firmly implanted in cheek...as I am well aware that it is considered...by many people...to be a symbol of greatness if you make the Playboy or Hustler grade...Sheesh.
As far as making money...I would give her a quarter to phone home and get the hell back with her no talent singing voice....and find somethin' else to do in Jersey.
by
Alexis Knapp (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 4 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:26:02 AM
And they are still getting rich from their prostitution.
I can't imagine a world where Henry Paulson and Ben Bernancke aren't complicit in the governmental machinations that brought down Elliot Spitzer. The fact that he was such a fool and an ass to give them the cover they needed is his greatest sin.
The Wall Street Cabal sees a need for some coalition of imbeciles to indemnify their co-conspirators from the consequences of their financial conspiracies, and they've already measured up the people of the United States for the part. Hence a $200 billion bank loan is arranged by the Fed to cover hedge fund losses. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_greg_pal_080314_the__24200_billion_bai.htmto
Does anyone remember the argument about why hedge funds should not be regulated? As I remember, it was that only wealthy investors would be allowed access to them, so any losses could be affordable to those investors. Now, we find once again, that We the People are the "wealthy investors" left holding the bag.
I say let the crash proceed. It will be painful, but at this point, I can think of nothing more gratifying than to see some of these filthy rats scurrying away in fear of losing their lives. Perhaps in a greatly improved world, as unlikely as it sounds, some of them will come to value their lives over their next buck.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 903 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:32:42 AM
Do you think little girls dream of growing up to be hookers?
Some might dream of growing up to be governors. But look what Spitzer did with that opportunity. He had a wife at home, and he did this to himself. He's all willing to own up to it now that he got caught, but I didn't see him resigning on his own, or admitting anything, until he was caught. If he has a sex addiction, then he needs to get help for it.
I think we should do what Sweden did and criminalize the ones who pay for prostitution and not the prostitutes, who are clearly in demand and take most of the risk. We need to stop blaming the victims for the ills of society.
Should she get a book deal or any other deal out of it? I don't think that's the right question. I think the question is why she's being offered a deal. Because people buy sex. Is she wrong if she grabs an opportunity that fell into her lap after doing what is probably one of the most humiliating and self-degrading jobs in the world -- not to mention dangerous? I don't think so. Maybe it will help her get out of that risky business. She's being made those offers because people buy it. Nobody forces anyone to buy copies of Hustler.
Maybe the question you really need to ask is why so many men who make it into positions of power pay for sex or cheat on their partners regularly. Why should they have power or make lots of money if they do that?
by
SpiritBlooms (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:35:49 AM
"Kristin" was not part of a sting. Spitzer spent $80.000 on prostitutes over a number of years. If each of those assignations was a $4000 job, that would be 20 nights with prostitutes, some of them this particular girl, apparently. I suspect he wasn't paying $4000 a pop, so the odds are it was more like 50 times.
You can't call it a sting if he asked for her again, which he did.
There is no justification for punishing this troubled young woman. She was doing what millions of women before her and after her have done. She didn't give a rat's ass who the John was, as long as he was paying his bill. I doubt if she even knew he was a governor.
In any event, I don't think it's right to deny prisoners to make money by literary endeavors. They are punished by doing time or paying fines or whatever, but unless the sentence includes a ban on making money, it's the public adding to the punishment.
Furthermore, "Kristin" hasn't been convicted of anything, or even charged yet, as far as I know, so why are you denying her the right to do what all Americans have a right to try to do--make a buck?
Dave Lindorff
by
Dave Lindorff (301 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 143 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:51:48 AM
Prostitution, in the form of selling sex, may offend the delicate sensibilities of americans but it is nothing new or shocking. And demonizing a woman (or man) who is simply trying to earn a living is absurd. The use of shock pejoratives such as "whore" makes no sense when most of are "whoring" in some form or another. Take a look at the media, academia, health care, big biz and, of course, corporations. Now what is it that is so petrifying about selling sex? Sex is used to sell everything. So looking but not touching is OK?
Some of sanctimonious amongst us feel it necessary to quibble about the fee, wondering if the woman concerned declared all of her $$ to the IRS. Hopefully those raising that question are squeeky clean themselves, declare every dime they have ever earned and are total paragons of perfection in every way. Her fee, incidently, is way less than many lawyers charge - and I bet she didn't get health benefits or investments.
But what is that really offends about "hookerdom"? Women taking charge of their own bodies? The usual arguments are that women only go into the sex industry because they are victims, bullied by their pimps, captives of traffickers, drug addicted etc etc. And while not all aspects of the sex trade are victim free, many are. What is so shocking about a business transaction between 2 consenting adults. At least it is clear and clean. No ambiguity. No fake contract. No question of being hired for 1 job and being told the only route to promotion is via some executives' bed. No putting up with abuse in the form of being mauled in the corner in exchange for advancement or benefits.
And for those who feel that the glory of an "honest" job is soooo much better consider what glory is there in waiting tables, pouring drinks, serving in a store, assembling on a factory line, working in meat packing, working in a health care facility for less than a living wage and no benefits?? Got school loans, a mortgage, car payments, kids, no health insurance? Suddenly the sex industry seems to be much more of a rational choice! And a much more honest one!
Can any of us say that we have never "whored" and sold ourselves? Can any of us say that we have never used sex in some form or another to our advantage? And that includes the good old gender bullying stil practised in most institutions today. Those who are slinging bricks and mud might want to look at their own lives first.
by
Pam Ladds (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 11:06:25 AM
Prostitution is illegal so anyone caught engaging in prostitution should be arrested and prosecuted. Prostitutes don't deserve jail time though. I agree prostitution shouldn't be illegal but as long as it is then the law has to be enforced.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 587 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 11:16:41 AM
My understanding was that she was an unwitting tool. Am I wrong in that? How can someone who is not intent to do harm be responsible for what an arm of the U.S. government does? I don't believe someone plying her trade is doing harm. She is providing a service, that's it. If the FBI has nothing better to do than spy on politicians' funtime then their ranks should be reduced. For that matter I would like to know what bank started this whole thing so I can warn my friends to remove their funds as soon as possible.
by
Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 846 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 11:27:13 AM
You may be overworked and worried about getting the funds to keep this site going, but the "Spitzer's Whore..." headline is way beneath your usual standards of fairness and balance.
Be a man, apologize to her in print, here on this site.
by
John Haigh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 90 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 11:31:51 AM
