http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hughes052103.asp

Draw your own conclusions.

Sorry to see tax dollars funding "National Review".

If Colin Powell thinks it's a good idea to promote legal prostitution to get our minds off the missing "hundreds of tons" of WMD, who am I to argue?

It is stated in the article that this is a practice going back to 1999.

Colin, as Secretary of State, wasn't even a gleam in a madam's eye at that point in time.

Another legacy of the Clinton's perhaps? Or would that be just a holdover from the previous administration's policy of "professional courtesy"?

Seems to me if Powell wanted to stop it, he had 3 years, given that it first occurred (according to the article, in 1999). But then, as I've said before, what would you expect from Republocrats?

Why is it that some people see sexuality morality as the most important measuring stick for human morality? I am assuming the "problem" that is being presented here is that prostitution is being viewed as immoral and therefore not a proper venue for diplomacy or intergovernmental relations.

I would argue that the morality of a lot of US commerce throughout the world which is supported by a host of other Fed Agencies are far worse than legalized sex between consenting adults.

Consider the way the US Government will support US corporations in finding markets, advertising and selling overseas tobacco products, consumer goods and drugs that have been deemed unsafe and illegal here.

Taking visiting diplomats to a brothel is small stuff morality-wise compared to what we do in other countries throughout the world. If we are going to get upset by morality, let's not limit it to sexual morality -- let's go after things that REALLY hurt people.

LP opined: Prostitution does not hurt people?

Then I take it you are in favor of legalizing and regulating the "sex trade" in the U.S.?

I was under the impression that prostitutes in Nevada had about the same qorking conditions as those in Amsterdam. It's too bad that legalization and regulation has not worked for them the way it has for the Dutch. If Nevada is truly commited to its legalization then in needs to take a more active part in its regulation and crack down on the trafficking of women by pimps. All the "window" prostitutes in Amsterdam are self-employed, pay taxes and get state medical and retirement benefits. As a result, they reap the full economic benefits of their choice and do not fear any pimp will threaten their well-being and safety as is the case with those who must do it illegally.

What is it about the Nevada system that is not working?

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com
http://www.RentMyMadridApartment.com

I think it would probably be improper to repeat the adage that the difference between prostitutes and congress is that there are some things that prostitutes won't do for money.

Ken

LOL!!!! I had not heard that one!

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com

Jolly,

I suspect this thread is much like the one on the commencement speech. It was started because of the subject matter, not because of any real issue. I doubt you would have started this if the article had been about importers and retailers importing goods from China where they were made with slave labor.

Legalized prostitution as is done in Nevada is no more harmful to the employees than many other jobs. Afetr all, coal mining is dangerous so I would never argue that no one is hurt by it. But that does not make it something to be outlawed.

If we are going to take exception to apparent immorality being supported by our Federal Government in support American businesses, I see far more immoral things being done by American businesses than wandering people off to some brothel in Nevada. I mentioned a few earlier I felt were more immoral. Let me add child labor laws, exploitative labor practices, bribery of government officials, needless destruction and decimation of the rain forest and other natural resources.

If we are going to argue immorality, let's not get hung up on defining morality in terms of sex. Let's look at the real immoral stuff. If my tax dollars are being exploited for immoral purposes, which they are, the most serious immorality is hardly giving a few businessmen a romp in the hay with a prostitute.

LP gve the example of: I admit I've never been to Las Vegas. I didn't know Nevada was such a hotbed of child exploitation, let alone that there were rain forests there.

I learn something new everyday.

hmmmmm.

So, Lazy Pianist. Your daughter walks up to you and says, "I'm definitely going to take one of two jobs and can't decide: should I go to Nevada and become a prostitute, or go to work for Nike."

From your point of view, I guess you would advise your daughter to become a prostitute, since that is not as immoral as Nike and their use of child labor?

Of course it could be much worse for you. She could say, "I'm going to work for the Bush administration. . ."

LOL!!!

This reminds me of an old joke.

A young nun meets with Mother Superior and informs her she is leaving the convent to become a prostitute. Mother Superior faints away at the news. When she comes to, Mother Superior asks her to repeat what she said. The young nun does.

Mother Superior says "Thank God. I thought you said you were becoming a Protestant!"

More seriously in response to you rvaga, I would not want my daughter working for a brothel or for Nike. I would prefer she do something worthwhile with her life.

But I am not going to jump all over the State Department for a little trip to a brothel when they work to protect Nike's labor practices in third world countries. If only one change change should occur in what the State Department does for businesses, it should stop supporting Nike's exploitation of children long before it stops taking visiting businessmen to whorehouses.

I concur.

Speaking of Nike, Nike sucks.

Phil Knight, founder of Nike, financed a four-candidate, antitax group in their run for the Portland school board. All of them lost.

And it was announced today, that some high school basketball wizard (OK, LeBron James, Cavaliers just picked him first-round) signed a 5 year (or was it 7) contract with Nike for the tidy sum of $90,000,000.

Yeah, I know. A major corporation looks at ROI. But it's still an obscene amount of money.

Tiger Woods signed with Nike for $100,000,000.

Michael Jordan signed with Nike in '92 for $2.5 million (whata chump, pocket change).

And our local multi-millionaire Blazers? No arrests in several weeks.

Whats up with these outrageous contracts and pay in sports?

Ninety - million - dollars. . .

I'll teach him to shave for 2 million, when the time comes!!

:rolleyes:

One word: fans.