Tuesday, May 01, 2007

D.C. Madam and the real moral of the story...

If you have not been following the story of alleged "D.C. Madam," Deborah Jeane Palfrey, what I find more interesting than her court room battles concerning the federal racketeering case (thought it's hard to not be interested in the firing of attorney's and her demand to be able to sell off some of her stock); what is interesting is that so many men who supposedly are powerful would be that stupid.

Yes, I realize some like Randall Tobias are trying to say they only used Pamela Martin & Associates for "legal" services such as a massage but seriously people, even if you did only use them for massage services? Knowing that it was an escort firm is not a smart move and it appears as if quite a few Washington insiders are very nervous as to who else will end up getting named before this is over. Tobias resigned, Harlan Ullman, the military strategist who brought us "Shock and Awe", was evidently shocked and awed by the accusation that he was a client, he stated it wasn't worthy of a response.

:-)

6 comments:

James F. Trumm said...

I don't think using prostitutes is stupid; what's stupid are our prostitution laws.

If any of this brothel's clients are public figures who have spoken out in favor of "the sanctity of marriage" or abstinence, or who have spoken out against men like Bill Clinton for having sex outside their marriages, then those men are certainly hypocrites and I see no problem with outing them. Otherwise, I really don't care if someone visits a prostitute.

Lisa Renee said...

I think our prostitution laws are not fantastic either, what is to me was stupid was not being aware of the public consequences.

It seems rather silly for a man who sleeps with a woman he picks up in a bar is viewed with less public disdain than one who pays for sex. Yet, if you are a public figure you should know by now that most things come out eventually and...if you were only interested in a legal massage? You might not want to have it done from a service that is associated with paid escorts...It's simple common sense, or at least it should be.

Head Spinner Scott said...

I have no problem with legalizing prostitution or with people hiring one. I have never done it, but I know plenty who have.

I think this is an issue not because of prostitution, but because of morals. If the politicians are using the services, why not change the laws so people don't have to break them.

Anonymous said...

This woman--the D.C. Madam--is a pig. But what would you expect from someone like her and her exploitation of young women?

So although I hate what she is doing in revealing whatever she is revealing--I think it is immoral and wrong to reveal these names because it is going to hurt a lot of innocent
people and destroy families--my real disdain is for NBC and Brian Ross, who, in my opinion, is a walking scumbag who should be working full-time for a tabloid outfit like The Star, The Enquirer, or The View.

SensorG said...

I think it's a brilliant defense on her part. She says the only thing her girls offered was massage. What better way to defend herself then have a parade of the rich and powerful testifying what services they received from her. I'm sure they'll all get up on the stand and swear they never had sex. :)

Why is it illegal to pay someone to have sex with me (hypothetical)? If I was making porn I can legally pay two people to have sex with each other (once again hypothetical).

Hooda Thunkit said...

Yawn. . .

Non-story :-|