Category Archives: Sex

The Real Prostitution Scandal

There has been alot of media coverage over the past several weeks about the case of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the woman who stands accused of running a call girl operation that catered to the rich and powerful in Washington.

But that’s not the only kind of prostitution that’s going on in our nation’s capital:

Prostitution comes in many forms, especially in Washington. A prostitute is someone “who sells one’s abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose,” according to the second definition given in the American Heritage Dictionary.

Add to the items for sale one’s position of influence, and you can see that prostitution runs rampant in Washington.

Lawmakers sell help to contributors. Policy makers tilt policy toward powerful constituencies. Officials run their corners of government to serve the White House instead of the general public.

The only difference between what Palfrey did and what politicians in Washington and around the country do on a regular basis is that Palfrey was selling sex, while the politicians are selling their nations future. When you think about it, Palfrey, as well as Acompanhantes SP and other escort services, really weren’t harming anyone compared to what the real prostitutes are doing.

H/T: The LP Blog

Somebody’s Gotta Say It (Book Review)

(Cross posted here at Fearless Philosophy for Free Minds)

As a regular listener of The Neal Boortz Show, I find this book every bit as hard-hitting, insensitive, informative, and entertaining as his show. The High Priest of the Painful Truth pulls no punches in his assault on ignorance whether from the Right, the Left, or Center. The Libertarian Party (the party that most closely reflects his views) is even skewered on a number of fronts.

It’s difficult to know how people who do not listen to his show will respond. You will likely find this book near books with a conservative political bent but conservatives who expect to find yet another book which relentlessly attacks the Left while keeping their sacred cows protected will be sorely disappointed. While Boortz dedicates a significant portion of the book to the lunacy of the Left, the Right is criticized for pushing their religious anti-science agenda on the American public (especially in government schools), their homophobia, and their continuous chipping away at the limited government platform they claim to embrace.

Boortz has many targets in this book but none receive more of his ire than government schools. Teacher’s unions exist solely to keep mediocre to incompetent teachers in a job; they will fight tooth and nail to prevent any kind of competition from private schools. But government schools are even more harmful that what we can see on the surface. Want to know why the American public has lost its love for freedom in exchange for security from an ever expanding government? According to Boortz, government schools are to blame. Government schools teach school children from a very young age that government is good and is the solution to every problem. There is even a chapter dedicated to how school children learn their first lesson in communism. Have you ever taken your child to the store and bought school supplies on a list only to have the teacher take those supplies away from your child to be donated to the class? If you don’t believe this to be a big deal consider the lesson your child is learning: he or she must give up his or her private property (school supplies in this case) for “the greater good” of the whole society (the classroom in this case).

Is it any coincidence that most Americans erroneously believe that America’s government is a democracy rather than a constitutional representative republic? Is it any coincidence that most Americans don’t know the difference or know why this distinction is important? Boortz contends that this is not by accident but by design. The purpose of government schools is not to educate students but to indoctrinate them into obedient citizens subjects.

Eventually, these school children grow up to be voters (Did I mention that the author finds no constitutional guarantee to the right to vote? Sounds crazy but once you read his arguments and consult the U.S. Constitution, he makes a compelling case). After thirteen years of government indoctrination, many of these adults see no problem with wealth redistribution, the welfare state, the nanny state, and have no genuine appreciation for liberty. This makes it very easy for politicians to pander to the American public to meet all of these needs which far too many people believe to be birthrights. Those who believe this the most tend to vote Democrat which leads me to his chapter “The Democrats’ Secret Plan for America.”

Boortz mockingly calls the Democrat plan a “secret plan” because of how Democrats typically scare various constituencies about Republican secret plans to kick old people into the street, burn black churches, and starve babies. Much of the secret plan is no secret at all however. So what do the Democrats have in store for America should they retain congress and win the presidency? According to the author we can expect the entire tax burden to be shifted to the wealthy, imputed income (which would put most all home owners in a higher tax bracket), place caps on income for those who “make too much,” add taxes to 401k and other investment vehicles which are not currently taxed, womb to the tomb universal government healthcare, the reinstatement of the “fairness doctrine” (which would effectively put an end to talk radio), the repeal of the Second Amendment, and several other such wet dreams of the far Left. If you don’t read any other chapter in this book, read this chapter.

Certainly, this book isn’t one which will leave the reader thinking “Its morning in America” but it does offer a fair amount of humor, positive solutions (such as what should be taught in government schools; provides his own citizenship test), and an inside peek of the talk radio business. Boortz opens the book by introducing himself, his interests and how he got into talk radio (under rather tragic circumstances). Even in the chapters that contain a discouraging outlook have a healthy dose of humor. But if you are overly outraged after reading the chapter about government funded art or the Democrat Party’s war on the individual, skip to “Chasing Cats” or “Terrorizing the Mailroom.” I won’t give away what these chapters are about but I assure you that you are in for a good belly laugh (that Boortz is quite the prankster).

Somebody’s Gotta Say It is a refreshingly honest, sober view of the body politic, American culture, and state of our world. Boortz presents a variety of original controversial ideas on a variety of issues. Such proposals would certainly make the political debate more productive if not more interesting (a number of these proposals can be found toward the end of the book in a chapter entitled “No Way in Hell.”). I highly recommend this book for anyone who is not easily offended. Anyone who is easily offended should skip this book in favor of a selection from the Oprah Book Club.

How Do Strippers Calculate VAT, Anyway?

It looks like reporting and paying taxes in the UK just got easier for strip clubs, and a lot harder for individual strippers.

He backed the chain’s argument that the self-employed dancers provide the entertainment on offer, rather than the club.

“The women are not employed by the club. They are all self-employed,” Mann said. “They pay a sum to the club which allows them to ply their trade for a session of eight hours.” Still, it is important to note that this practice varies from country to country, and while it may be standard for entertainers in the UK, it may be completely different for Perth Strippers in Australia.

“Some of them will be those dancing on the podium. These proceedings do not, at least directly, concern that activity.

“The activities which concern me are those provided as a result of more direct engagement between the women and the customer, whether it be here in the UK or with Strippers in Gatlinburg, or elsewhere.

“For a sum of money, the women can be engaged to perform private dances for the customer. A fee of 10 pounds is charged for a semi-nude dance; 20 pounds is charged for a nude dance. Each dance lasts for a ‘track’, about three minutes.

While this is mostly a post with the intent of talking about strippers, it does bring up some interesting (and flippant) questions. In practice, it will require strippers, just like the ones on babestation.tv/girls, to register with the British government as sole-proprietor businesses, and thus to pay business taxes. But the determination of taxes owed becomes problematic.

How does a stripper calculate their VAT? My interpretation of a VAT is that you must charge the VAT on your services, but then you can be refunded the VAT on business inputs necessary in the production of your “services”.

So do you get refunded the VAT that you paid when you bought your stripping clothes? Do you have to pro-rate this against the number of semi-nude and nude dances you perform, since those clothes aren’t used in the nude dances? Do you get to refund the VAT from purchasing exercise equipment necessary to maintain your figure, as it is a crucial factor in your business? And how do you calculate “what yo’ momma gave you”?

VAT taxes on services are by definition difficult to understand. What are you adding value to? For a stripper, your dancing ability— and your ability to make customers think you actually care about them, since strippers are in the business of selling the illusion of intimacy— are a value added to your general sex appeal. So how do you value your sex appeal in the determination of how much value your talent adds?

These are crucial questions that need to be answered. To answer those questions, I think it’s time for some extensive field research into the subject!

Common Sense On Gays In The Military

Alan Simpson, a former Senator from Wyoming who once was a strong advocate of the military’s Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell policy, has a great column in today’s Washington Post explaining why he’s changed his mind.

There is alot to like about the column, but here’s the money quote:

Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that “gay” is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman’s on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end “don’t ask, don’t tell.” This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America’s forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.

Good for you Senator. Except I’d disagree on one thing. General Pace is entitled to his own personal opinion about homosexuals, but he serves at the pleasure of the President and as he has already admitted, it was entirely inappropriate for him to voice his personal views on this issue while speaking as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The ban on homosexuals, or at least open homosexuals, in the military is as out-dated as segration was when Harry Truman ended that stupid policy in the 1950s. It’s time for it to come to an end.

Related Posts:

Dishonor And Dishonesty
Civil Unions And Multiple Wives

Dishonesty and Dishonor

Top US General Calls Homosexuality Immoral
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
13 March 2007

The top U.S. military officer has said homosexuality is immoral, sparking renewed controversy about the status of homosexuals in the U.S. military. VOA’s Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, told the Chicago Tribune newspaper the military ban on homosexuals should continue, because homosexuality is immoral. The newspaper posted audio from the interview on its Web site.

PACE: “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

General Pace told the Tribune that to officially allow homosexuals to serve in the military would be an endorsement of immoral activity. He said the military should not endorse any immoral acts, mentioning specifically homosexuality and extra-marital affairs, which are also against military regulations. General Pace endorsed the current policy, under which homosexuals serve by keeping their sexual orientation a secret.

Okay now, first off, I’m saying this as a man who is both Catholic, and a veteran; Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is offensive, insulting to all men and women who wear the uniform, gay or straight, and it should be ended one way or another.

The military is no place for mealy mouthing and careful parsing of statements for political correctness… or rather it shouldn’t be, but all too often it is.

Whatever you think of homosexuality, you can’t deny that DADT is a moral, social, and disciplinary disgrace of epic proportions.

Now, again as both a Catholic and a veteran, the idea that someone should be banned from serving their country because a general believes their private sexual behavior is immoral, is ludicrous. If his morality is coming from his Christianity he should know he is in no position to judge, that’s Gods job.


We ban adultery in the military, not because it is immoral, but because it is dishonorable. It is the betrayal of a sacred oath, and if a man will betray his marriage vows, might he not betray his service oath as well? If someone has been discharged from the military for adultery, it can impact your future military career. If you don’t want to be dishonorably removed from the military, you could consider getting in contact with this Attorney Richard V. Stevens law firm, for example. They should be able to help you appeal this and, hopefully, prove your innocence. By trying to fight your case, you could be accepted back into the military. Of course, adultery is punishable in the military rules, but if you’re not guilty, then you could earn your place back in the military.

There is nothing inherently dishonorable about homosexuality; but we force gay men and women into being dishonorable, ever day that they serve in silence.

Hell, I’m willing to bet MY private sexual behavior would GREATLY disturb Gen. Pace as well; and I’m a happily married man with two kids, who honorably served my country.

The fact of the matter is, there are thousands upon thousands of gay men and women serving honorably in the armed forces today; there always have been and there always will be. To tacitly accept their honorable service, and then insist that they dishonor themselves by being closeted is a shameful stain on OUR honor, as service members, as veterans, and as a nation.

Freedom of conscience is among our highest freedoms, and forced denial of self is an abuse of that freedom.

Hell, I knew for a fact that I was serving with gay service members; and was friends with several serving gays and lesbians who were quite candid about their sexual orientation, with friends only. It didn’t affect their job, and it didn’t make them poor service members; but it very definitely affected their souls.

It made me ashamed to have to accept this policy. IT IS WRONG.

Now, as to whether gays SHOULD be allowed to openly serve, I am of mixed mind on that.

The primary official concern, and logic behind the official ban, is that gays serving with straights will result in inappropriate sexual behavior.

To my mind, so long as we set and enforce appropriate standards of behavior and discipline, and severely punish anyone who does not abide by those standards, be they gay or straight, I don’t care who my buddy wants to have sex with (even if it’s me).

Implicit in the banning of gays, while we allow men and women to serve together; is the assumption that gay men, and lesbian women will be less able to control themselves around other service members they are attracted to than straight service members. I find this implied assertion to be quite offensive; and disrespectful to ALL service members not just gays and lesbians.

The fact of the matter is, the rules say keep it in your pants (or if you don’t for gods sakes don’t let it screw up the job). If we can expect straight folks to do it, we can expect gay folks to do it.

I’m not saying there aren’t issues here. There will always be elements of anti-gay sentiment in the military; especially in the hypermasculine culture that pervades most of the military (and I don’t necessarily think that culture is inappropriate much of the time); but so what, there are idiots currently serving who also hate women, Muslims, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Arabs, and every other identity group out there (note the caps).

Then there’s the people who say “What about AIDS and other STDs that homosexuals are at higher risk for? In the barracks environment, in training, and in combat, there is a lot of close contact, potentially with with bodily fluids, as well as transfusions and the like”.

Well, yes that’s true, but the fact is that every service member can be required to have an AIDS test every six months, and probably SHOULD be, straight or gay. As I was getting out I believe they were instituting regular screening for many STDs, and they have been testing for Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and Hepatitis with every physical, for as long as such test have existed.

Hell, you can’t even say that gay men are at a much greater risk here, because soldiers, sailors, and airmen as a class, are about the most promiscuous people on the planet (I know, I was one of them), as well as frequent patrons of prostitutes, who are the highest risk group for sexually transmitted diseases by far.

After over a decade of exclusion, we now allow gay men with clear AIDS tests to give blood in the civvy world (presuming they don’t have other risk factors like a high number of partners etc…); and we require a standard of behavior in or service members higher than society requires for gay men as a whole, so I reject this argument as specious.

All that said, I think this whole thing is one gigantic social mess. Hell, we’ve screwed up the military trying to integrate women, and still haven’t managed to do so successfully for over 60 years of trying (since the inception of the Womens Army Corps nurses serving near the front in WW2).

And I’m not saying women shouldn’t be allowed to serve either. I’m of the opinion that anyone who can meet the standards of a combat soldier should be allowed to serve in combat. That those standards be the same for all genders, sexual preferences, races, creeds or any other thing. Everybody has to pass the same test no matter what, and that test is predicated on what makes a good soldier, not what the average of the lowest-performing group can pass (which is how women PFT standards were developed by the by).

My point is, however, that even given the position of women in our society, as the now dominant cultural force (and if you don’t think that’s true, you haven’t watched much network TV or been on a university campus recently – lucky you); we STILL can’t get integrating them into our military forces right. Integrating open homosexuality is a lot more controversial and difficult socially than women.

Then there’s the fact that the service environment engenders a lot of very unguarded and intimate social contact, with communal quarters, showers etc… Some raise the entirely valid point that you wouldn’t force a woman to shower with a man, nor should you force straight men to shower with gay men who might have a sexual interest in them

I don’t agree with that point in its entirety, but I do see the issue, and I don’t think the solution is separate accommodation for gay and straight (That would be just ridiculous, and nearly impossible to do in a combat zone anyway). Hell, I don’t even think we should have separate accommodation for men and women out in the field. If women want to play with the boys they should shower with the boys… but that’s neither here nor there.

The armed forces are not the place for social experimentation, and forcing such a change in the middle of a war is beyond stupidity.

My thought is that “don’t ask don’t tell” is insulting and shameful to all concerned; that anyone currently serving who is gay should be allowed to come out of the closet should they choose to do so, but we should avoid at all costs treating gays as a protected class etc… etc…

I just don’t know how to do it.

Honestly, I don’t think we can do it right now. I don’t think it’s far off, but I don’t think it’s this year, or next year.

UPDATE:

WASHINGTON — Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed mild regret Tuesday for voicing his belief that homosexual acts are “immoral,” but he stopped short of an apology as gay rights groups and a powerful Republican senator rebuked the general for the comments he made to the Chicago Tribune.

As critics fired rhetorical volleys, Pace issued a statement expressing regret that he had put so much stress on the morality issue when he defended the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military during a Monday interview with the Tribune’s editorial board.

“In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct,” Pace said in his statement. “I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”

Well, although I disagree with him, Ill say I respect the man all the more for saying this, in this way. He didn’t cave to pressure to apologize for his personal views; but he acknowledged that it was entirely inappropriate for him to have expressed his personal views in the context of military policy.

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

1 7 8 9