Best. Blog. Headline. Evah?

When Your Neighbor Loses His Job
It's A Recession.
When You Screw A Whore Behind Your Wife's Back, Get Caught, And Lose Your Job, It's A Catastrophic Economic Meltdown.

Via Memeorandum. About Eliot Spitzer.

Mary Jo Kopechne couldnot be reached for comment

Having suggested that Jenny Sanford should ventilate her cheating SOB husband with .38 slugs, I think I cannot be accused of making excuses for Republicans with zipper problems.

Well, what about David Shuster of NBC News? A friend was following Shuster's Twitter feed yesterday:

Does Spitzer deserve more "credit" (wrong word choice, I know) because he resigned as opposed to Sanford who is staying in office?

To quote Andrew Sullivan, words fail. My opinion is that Sanford's next office should be under a tombstone, and comparing the Last Tango in Buenos Aires to the sordid saga of Spitzer -- the anti-prostitution crusader who found himself entangled in an FBI investigation of an interstate call-girl ring -- tends to obscure, rather than enlighten.

What kind of perverse mind tries to use Sanford's shame to rehabilitate the scoundrel Spitzer? Absurd.

Meanwhile, speaking of Twitter and Sanford, Dave Weigel just Twittered a quote from his story about the Sanford scandal:

"It proves men who oppose federal spending are irresistible to women."
-- Grover Norquist

Heh. No wonder Dr. Helen keeps such a close eye on Glenn Reynolds. Keep that .38 handy, Dr. Helen!

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin is definitely not a member of the Grover Norquist Fan Club:

Just what we need: Beltway conservatives showing how tone-deaf and insensitive they are for the sake of a self-aggrandizing soundbite.

Note Malkin's mother-bear reaction:

I don’t find anything funny about the Sanford affair. It’s the mom in me thinking about four handsome boys on Father’s Day weekend abandoned by their stupid, selfish father, who was busy tanning with his mistress in Argentina. Heart-breaking. Yes. Nauseating. Yes. Maddening. Yes. Funny? No.

Sarcasm is my natural metier, and spending two decades in the newroom tends to put a keen edge on one's cynical indifference to the foibles of the famous and powerful. In some circles, a big-shot politician is like a rock star, so when a politician behaves like he's on tour with Aerosmith, it brings out my inner Mencken. (He once remarked that the only way a journalist should ever look at a politician is down.)

My cynicism is bipartisan. Sanford's Argentine escapade is, to me, as ludicrous and deserving of scornful laughter as any shenanigans of Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton.

I was on the phone a few minutes ago with a Texas Republican, a Christian conservative gentleman with extensive experience in the blogosphere. As I explained to my friend, for 20 years I've had a saying: My wife has a kitchen drawer full of knives, and I've got to sleep sometime.

Humor can expresss truth. In an act of divine irony, God blessed an ugly old hound like me with a beautiful wife, a blessing deserving of eternal gratitude. If I ever cheated on Mrs. Other McCain, no jury would ever convict her. My well-deserved death (or grievous mutilation) would be the subject of a thousand jokes, and appropriately so.

UPDATE II: Weigel's story is now on Memeorandum and if you're offended by humor, let's look at a couple of serious reactions to l'affaire Sanford. Erick Erickson:

What Mark Sanford did was wrong. He needs to go in a dark hole somewhere where no one can see him or hear him and rehabilitate himself. . . . The left is going to spend the next week making Sanford into the second coming of James Dobson to smear real marriage advocates and social conservatives — positions Sanford was rarely vocal on.

There are things from which a politician can "rehabilitate himself." Flying off to Argentina to screw a "glorious" woman named Maria Belen Shapur? Nope. I caught a minute of yesterday's press conference while at the American Spectator office. When Sanford used the word "forgiveness," I shouted at the TV a two-word response. (Hint: The second word was "you.")

Welcome to the private sector, sir. Resign now. Meanwhile, Sanford's downfall contributes to the disillusionment of a young Washingtonian:

Forget shaking my faith in the Republican Party, after a while it just starts to shake your faith in men. I mean, are all men incapable of remaining faithful?
I've been following this story with fingers crossed, "Please, don't be another Republican having an affair!" I guess that was too much to ask for. What a chump. It just leaves me shaking my head with a look of disgust across my face. It's just so disappointing.

Question: What about the Marias of the world, who seem to have no compunction about affairs with other women's husbands? Do such women bear no responsibility? Whatever sort of two-faced scumbag horndog Mark Sanford may be, even in Buenos Aires it still takes two to tango. Sanford is 100% responsible for keeping his own vows, but his responsibility does not exempt Maria from blame.

Amid all these serious considerations, I still defend my right to sarcasm. If Bill Clinton is a punchline, Mark Sanford is a Monty Python routine.

The sadistic pleasure of 'progressivism'

Remember when Eliot Spitzer's anti-capitalist crusades made him a darling of the "progressive" Left?

"I was never fully undressed. He was naked. He was perspiring a lot. He was holding me down. He pinned me to the bed. That didn't bother me. But when he grabbed my throat, that was too much. I remember trying to push myself up off the bed, which made him apply more pressure. I've never been worried about my safety, but I was really concerned."

Strangling hookers. Something symbolic there, eh?

The outrage merchant

You know Glenn Greenwald's about to write something particularly stupid when his first line includes a descriptor like "extremely pro-war, neoconservative." (Why not just "pro-war"? Why must it be bookended between "extremely" and "neoconservative"?)

In the case of Greenwald's latest emission at Salon, the elaborate descriptor is applied to the defunct New York Sun, two of whose former staffers have recently contributed to the New Republic. One of them, Jacob Gerhsman, published an article expressing surprise toward Eliot Spitzer's early attempt at political rehabilitation. This article -- "a finger-wagging sermon," per Greenwald -- inspires a counterblast comparing Spitzer's crimes (hiring high-priced call girls) with the crimes alleged against Dick Cheney who, Greenwald says, "literally admitted, brazenly and unapologetically, to committing war crimes; blithely justified the atrocities that were committed as part of our attack on Iraq; and glorified the whole slew of illegal surveillance programs he ordered."

Greenwald's a one-trick pony. Being outraged at Republican "war crimes" is his shtick, and God knows how he'll fill his days when the Bush administration leaves office. The man certainly doesn't get work on the basis of his engaging prose. A single sentence as sample:

The reason the American political establishment tenaciously refuses to acknowledge the devastation and crimes that have been unleashed during the Bush era is obvious: aside from the generalized belief that Americans are inherently good and thus incapable of meriting terms such as "aggressive wars" and "war criminals" no matter what they actually do (those phrases are applicable only to lesser foreigners), most of the establishment supported these crimes and the criminals who unleashed them.

Seventy-four words, in case you were counting, and not much real meaning except: "Boy, do I hate Bush!" If you share Greenwald's outrage, perhaps it's satisfying to watch him reiterate it endlessly -- a sort of online Olbermann rant to tide you over until you can go home and watch "Countdown." If you aren't outraged, however, there's no reason to read Greenwald except as a species of grim duty.

Anti-Bush indignation is his stock in trade, and the sell-by date of that particular commodity has probably already passed. No one, however, has told this to Greenwald. He's like one of those guys who got on the "who killed Vince Foster?" bandwagon in 1993 and kept peddling it long after the public had lost interest.

Expect Greenwald to keep chasing his idee fixe. He won't change his tune, he'll just look for new excuses to sing it. Some member of the Obama administration will be caught in a minor scandal, and Greenwald will trot out his obligatory column saying that whatever the administration official did, it can't possibly be compared to "the devastation and crimes that have been unleashed during the Bush era."

By 2010, this method of argumentation will be known as the Greenwald Defense, and will be widely employed throughout society: "Yes, officer, I realize I was doing 83 mph in a 55 mph zone, but is this really worth a traffic citation, when you consider the devastation and crimes that have been unleashed during the Bush era?"

(Cross-posted at AmSpecBlog.)

UPDATE: Linked at Instapundit. Thanks! And with only a week left until Christmas, this would be a great time to remind everyone of the 2008 Holiday Book Sale.

UPDATE II: The New York Daily News has more on the Spitzer career rehabilitation project.

UPDATE III: Greenwald links, and I respond.

Spitzer's hooker speaks!

(Via Hot Air.) Let's face it, at least Spitzer got his money's worth, compared to whatever action "Truckstop Jim" McGreevey was getting . . .

UPDATE: I find myself anonymously accused in the comments of a "sexist and offensive" attitude, because my "cavalier comments" are a "thin disguise for admiration for Spitzer's sexual prowess," an endorsement of the "exploitation of young, beautiful women in the sex trade," etc.

Lighten up, Anonymous. Nearly all my comments are "cavalier," and the destruction of the crusading anti-capitalist Spitzer in a hooker scandal was one of the most richly ironic political stories of the year. He hates capitalism -- those evil, greedy, big corporations! -- yet he's paying thousands per night to shag a high-priced call girl?

I certainly don't "admire" Spitzer for his "prowess." Paying for the companionship of a prostitute is the opposite of "prowess." But at least, as I said, he got his money's worth. If a politician is going to destroy his career with a sex scandal, the means of his destruction ought to be something extravagant and glamorous, rather than McGreevey's sordid truck-stop assignations or Tim Mahoney's tepid affair with a middle-aged Hill staffer. Wilbur Mills and "the Argentine Firecracker" splashing around the Tidal Basin -- that's what I call a sex scandal.

And, please, Anonymous, spare me this crap:

I just feel sad for Dupree; as sad as I felt for Monica Lewinsky. Both were exploited by powerful men and learned a painful lesson about bad choices and narcissistic men.

Dupre was engaged in a fee-for-service transaction. Who was exploiting whom? She goes on TV with Diane Sawyer and does the poor-victim routine, and everybody's supposed to feel sorry for her. Not me. Let's call a money-grubbing whore what she is, OK? The whore and her john are equally contemptible, and if I express my contempt through sarcastic humor, well, that's pretty much how I express everything.

Finally, as to Miss Lewinsky: She was a spoiled-rotten rich girl who grew up in Bel Air, Calif. I try to make a point of never feeling sorry for people like that -- given every advantage and every opportunity in life, petted and pampered and sheltered from harm, and ultimately failing because they lack any strength of character. Oh, I know the type well: Selfish, weak, superficial and filled with self-pity. What act of charity or generosity did Monica Lewinsky ever do that would recommend her as worthy of 1/10th of what was lavished on her? And now, on top of everything else, we are supposed to pity her? It seems to me she's had entirely too much of that.

UPDATE II: Little Miss Attila calls me a whore. I think she means that as a compliment.

Lawyer: Media unfair to whore

Well, this is rich:

The lawyer for the call girl linked to the downfall of Gov. Eliot Spitzer lashed out at the media on Friday for thrusting the 22-year-old woman into the "public glare" without her consent and publishing revealing photos.
Since her identity was disclosed, newspapers and Web sites have splashed photos of Ashley Alexandra Dupre in suggestive poses on front and inside pages. Dupre was known as "Kristen" in court documents accusing Spitzer of paying thousands for prostitutes' services.
Her attorney, Don D. Buchwald, said she did not consent to the use of her photos in this manner, and the usage may be a violation of federal copyright laws.

(Via Memeorandum.) Oh, that dreadful "public glare"! Oh, the shame of those "revealing photos"!

Hey, Buchwald: Your client is a whore. She was peddling that stuff to the highest bidder. And since prostitution is a crime, Ashley Alexandra Dupre's "revealing" photos -- to the extent that they were used to advertise her illegal services -- were arguably instrumental to her criminal conduct.

Jammie Wearing Fool shares my amusement:

She's an attention-seeking whore, yet somehow now has a problem everyone is seeing her photos?

Buchwald, you don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it. If you ever dared to bring any legal action on this pathetic claim, you'd be laughed out of court. Why don't you concentrate on trying to keep your whore client out of prison, which is what I presume you're getting paid to do?

Better yet, Buchwald, why don't you get creative? Contact MTV and try to sell them on a new reality series, "High-Priced Whore." If you work the deal right, Ms. Dupre could soon be an even more infamous whore than she already is.

UPDATE: While looking for more photos, I came across this story in the Boston Globe, which might be called "A Whore's Tale":

She left a broken home on the Jersey Shore at 17 and came to New York City to work the nightclubs as a rhythm-and-blues singer. . . .
In a series of telephone interviews on Tuesday night, she said she had slept very little over the past week due to the stress from the case. "I just don't want to be thought of as a monster," the woman said.

(Not a monster, just a whore, Ashley.)

Born Ashley Youmans but now known as Ashley Alexandra Dupre, she spoke softly and with good humor as she added: "This has been a very difficult time. It is complicated." . . .

(I'm sure all the guys who went to high school in New Jersey with Ashley Youmans are now laughing themselves silly: "Spitzer paid $4,000 for that? Man, I used to get it for free -- and it wasn't that good.")

She left "a broken family" at age 17, having been abused, according to the MySpace page, and has used drugs, "been broke and homeless." . . .
Carolyn Capalbo, 46, Dupre's mother, said that she attended Wall High School in Belmar until her sophomore year, when she moved to North Carolina. "She was a young kid with typical teenage rebellion issues, but we are extremely close now," Capalbo said in a telephone interview yesterday. . . .
Capalbo said that she was "shell-shocked" when her daughter called mid-last week and told her she had been working as an escort and was now in trouble with the law. She said she was not sure Dupre realized who Spitzer was when he was her client.
"She is a very bright girl who can handle someone like the governor," Capalbo said in a telephone interview yesterday. "But she also is a 22-year-old, not a 32-year-old or a 42-year-old, and she obviously got involved in something much larger than her."

Add your own punchlines, folks.

UPDATE 12:50 p.m.: My friend James Joyner at Outside the Beltway appears to take seriously the legalistic arguments that newspapers that published MySpace photos of Ashley/"Kristen" are guilty of copyright infringement. Nonsense.

Look, I've got a 3 p.m. appointment 100 miles from here, so I'll have to make this quick:

Ashley/"Kristen" is a criminal, who is in a world of legal jeopardy. She has engaged in prostitution as part of what prosecutors say is an interstate (and perhaps international) prostitution ring. She is implicated in potential federal money-laundering charges, as well as possible violation of the Mann Act. As far as we know, Ashley/"Kristen" used her MySpace photos to advertise her call-girl services.

Furthermore, by the highly-publicized nature of her crimes -- which destroyed the career of the governor of New York -- Ashley/"Kristen" has arguably become a public figure. Thus, all photos of Ashley/"Kristen" can be considered fair game at this point.

Remember those pictures of the Columbine killers brandishing their weapons? Do you think anyone got permission or paid a royalty to publish those photos? I don't think so.

The same principle applies with photos of Ashley/"Kristen." Who would be the plaintiffs in a copyright suit? The whore herself? Authorities are going to let her out of jail so she can testify in freaking copyright case? And what kind of judge or jury would award damages in such a case?

So, yeah, Buchwald can sue the NY Post and cause them to have to spend money hiring lawyers to handle the case, but it would just be a nuisance action, and would never result in damages?

Whatever the fine points of the law in this case, the practical reality is that the newspapers that published the photo are in the clear -- and they know it, which is why they didn't hesitate to publish them.

Spitzer career death watch

UPDATE 11:49 a.m. -- "My private failings"? He used that phrase twice. But crime is not a "private failing," and prostitution is a crime -- to say nothing of the suspected money-laundering that led to this revelation. Will update. ...

UPDATE NOON -- In many ways, Spitzer's resignation statement was classy, and notably lacked the kind of "accuse the accusers" tactic that Bill Clinton taught us to expect from Democrats caught red-handed.

However, Spitzer's repeated use of the phrase "my private failings" was a dishonest evasion. What would Spitzer, as a former prosecutor, say about an accused dope dealer who spoke of his crime as a "private failing"?

In patronizing prostitutes, Spitzer was engaged in a criminal act. Crime is an offense against the citizenry, which is why the prosecution of Spitzer for federal money laundering charges -- if such a prosecution is indeed pursued -- will be called "United States vs. Spitzer." And no crime can be more public than a crime committed by a powerful public official, such as the governor of New York.

In his statement, Spitzer spoke of the importance of taking responsibility, yet in the same statement, by using the term "private failings" to describe his crime, he engaged in a rhetorical attempt to evade full responsibility.

UPDATE 12:30 p.m. -- Jan LaRue, writing for the Culture and Media Institute (CMI), reacts similarly to the "private failings" bit and then goes much further:

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has joined the rogue's gallery of adulterous politicians who appear before the press to confess their "failures" while using their wives as supportive props. . . .
Even if the wife wants to be there, you'd think they'd have the guts to stand alone and take the heat. It would feel less egregious if he hired another "escort" for the occasion. ...
But the wife is there because the wimp's personal ambitions and desire for public rehabilitation apparently outweigh his desire for marital reconciliation. . . .
Public officials who hire a hooker haven't merely committed a "private" failure. These are people who swear an oath to uphold the law but have violated the public trust. Consorting with criminals opens the door to extortion and bribery.
And to any wife who appears as a prop beside her meandering man because she values status, power, and a lucrative lifestyle more than her self-respect, you might want to reflect on the message you're sending your children.

Ouch. Well-said, Dr. LaRue.

UPDATE 1 p.m.: Jammie Wearing Fool has what he believes to be an image of a (not safe for work) ad for "Kristen," Gov. Whorehopper's Feb. 13 tryst. My first impression? She's lying about being 105 pounds; judging from the photo, she's at least 115 pounds, if not 120. My advice to Democratic politicians: Beware of hookers who lie about such trival details.

Meanwhile, City Room has the full text of Spitzer's statement.

I'll have to stop blogging for the day now, since I must prepare for Reason Magazine's Cuba policy event with Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), where I'll excoriate Dave Weigel for not linking my blog in his Spitzer roundup and apologize to Kerry Howley for my harsh tone in last night's post. (Hey, it's not just Spitzer who has "private failings.")

** Earlier **

Wed., March 12, 10:20 a.m. -- Fox News morning anchors now babbling idiotically. But that's not news. The chryon at the bottom of the screen, however -- "Spitzer to resign at 11:30 a.m." -- that's news, buddy. Via Memeorandum, New York Post reports the same. Will update. ...

10:40 a.m. -- Fox News just interviewed Rep. Peter King (R-Schadenfreude), who could barely contain his glee. By the way, here's a link to my long analysis blog from yesterday, "Whores and NY Democrats." Stay tuned for more updates. ...

10:50 a.m. -- This is the kind of story, frankly, where I'd rather be blogging it than covering it as news. Everybody already knows how the story ends, and you could go ahead and set the headline now:

Spitzer resigns, blames 'right wing' for scandal

A print reporter could cover this thing by watching it on TV. The poor shlubs who are physically present for the New York press conference are just there to provide the immediacy of an on-the-scene dateline and a bit of "color." I pity them.

More updates to come ....

11:10 a.m. -- Plans for an 11 a.m. update got scratched when I got a call from an old friend in Atlanta. Well, she's more than just an "old friend," but I wouldn't want her husband to beat me up. (A joke! That's just a joke, Mr. Fields!)

Fox News was just showing a helicopter shot of a black SUV pulled up in front of the apartment building where Spitzer's "brief announcement" is supposed to take place in 20 minutes.

More updates to come ....

11:20 a.m. -- While waiting for Gov. Whorehopper's much-anticipated resignation, I was reading Kimberly Strassel's Wall Street Journal column about on the Gov's media enablers:

Journalists have spent the past two days asking how a man of Mr. Spitzer's stature would allow himself to get involved in a prostitution ring. The answer, in my mind, is clear. The former New York attorney general never believed normal rules applied to him, and his view was validated time and again by an adoring press. "You play hard, you play rough, and hopefully you don't get caught," said Mr. Spitzer two years ago. He never did get caught, because most reporters were his accomplices. . . .

Read the whole thing. Well, not right now. We're 10 minutes away from a historic occasion, complete with historic amounts of cable-news hype.

Expect further updates . . .

11:30 a.m. -- More babbling from Fox News talking heads while Gov. Whorehopper's motorcade is en route. This is the part of 24/7 cable news I hate the most: The big live-coverage deal, where they just keep up a nonstop chatter in order to fill the time. It's annoying, if you're literate enough to read for yourself the same news articles the TV people are referencing.

Expect further updates . . .

11:35 a.m. -- The planned 11:30 press conference delayed by traffic in Midtown Manhattan. I guess I should point out that I'm not hammering on Fox News specifically, but as a generic example of the idiotic babbling common on all TV news channels when they're just filling time while covering live news. I'm sure the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC are equally annoying right now, if not more so.

Expect further updates . . .

11:40 a.m. -- OK, they're getting ready to start. The Fox News babe just asked Rich Lowry, "Could [Spitzer] have stayed on?" Duh.

Expect further updates . . .

Whores and NY Democrats

UPDATE: Linked at Blogs for Victory, where my friend Matt Margolis (co-author of Caucus of Corruption) notes the reports from the New York Sun and WCBS that Spitzer is expected to resign Wednesday.

* * * * *

As co-author of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party, I was asked Tuesday afternoon for my reaction to the Eliot Spitzer scandal.

First suggestion? Read Iowahawk and laugh yourself silly:

At a hastily scheduled morning press conference at the headquarters of New York's exclusive Emperors Club prostitution ring, high priced call girl "Kristen" announced that she would temporarily step aside in the wake of charges that she had engaged in sex with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.
"I made a serious mistake and betrayed the trust of my co-workers, my many clients, and my pimps," she said in a quiet voice cracking with emotion. "I will be taking a leave of absence to earn their forgiveness, and redeem myself in the eyes of the entire expensive whore community." . . .

Read the whole thing, and when you're through wiping the tears of laughter from your eyes, pay attention to a few points worth making:

• Why hookers? Spitzer is successful and powerful, so it is reasonable to ask why a guy like that is patronizing prostitutes. One word: Discretion. A bigshot like that figures that if he engages in an ordinary affair, the woman might tell somebody -- and if the affair breaks up, there's the "woman scorned" factor to worry about. But because prostitution is a criminal enterprise, a guy like Spitzer figures the prostitutes will keep things hush-hush. And maybe if this had been just an occasional fling, Spitzer might have gotten away with it. But doing hookers for six years? The law of large numbers finally caught up with him.
• The Tammany factor. The revelation of Spitzer's hooker habit highlights the significant role that prostitution played in the history of the Democratic Party in New York, going back to the heyday of Tammany Hall. As explained in Chapter 3 of Donkey Cons, during the 1800s, Tammany Democrats formed close alliances with criminal gangs in New York City, alliances that endured for many decades. A famous Tammany boss and saloon keeper, "Big Tim" Sullivan, controlled New York's police on behalf of pimps and gamblers. Sullivan was so influential that when he died with advanced syphilis in 1913, his funeral was attended by 16 congressmen and four U.S. senators.
• The irony. Hailed by liberals as the scourge of greedy Wall Street capitalism, Spitzer was destroyed by his enthusiasm for sex of the most capitalistic sort. Spitzer supposedly cared so much about the poor underprivileged "little guy," but didn't mind paying $2,000 a night for the privilege of demanding unsafe sexual acts from prostitutes. (Hey, they're just stupid whores, right? Don't all Democrats expect whores "to do things you might not think were safe"? Or is Spitzer a lone wolf in this regard?)
• The bright side. Spitzer's downfall apparently triggered Wall Street's biggest day in five years.

For more blogger reaction to Spitzer's Hookergate debacle, check out Memeorandum.

UPDATE: I've just been informed that the title of this post may tend to suggest a disparaging (and potentially libelous) comparison. Therefore, I hasten to point out that, unlike New York Democrats, some whores are actually decent human beings.

UPDATE II: Unlike "Kristen," who was warned about Spitzer's appetite for unsafe acts, another call girl, this one 22 years old, tells ABC News that Spitzer's sexual interests were "clean." Lots of good stuff in the ABC story:

Federal investigators say there is no evidence Spitzer used state money or campaign funds to pay the prostitutes, but that the way he moved an estimated $40,000 through various accounts violated federal money laundering laws. . . .
A prison term is one of the issues holding up the governor's resignation as well as whether or not he pleads guilty to criminal charges.

Heh. An ex-prosecutor in prison. He would be very popular there, I bet. But there's more from ABC:

Other than that, lawyers close to the case say New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is prepared to resign and has his letter written.
Spitzer spent his day at his 5th Avenue apartment in New York City. His wife and three daughters left without him mid-afternoon as he prepared to step down as governor and end what even his political enemies called a once brilliant career.

"His wife and three daughters" -- yeah, prostitution is a victimless crime.

UPDATE III: I love the the New York Post for its tawdry tabloid mentality, but this is just bad writing:

She was waiting for him near the king-sized bed in Room 871, a stunningly sexy, petite brunette who called herself "Kristen."

She knew Client-9 had paid good money -- $4,300 -- for what would be their few hours of steamy sex together at Washington, DC's historic Mayflower Hotel on the day before Valentine's Day, in a deal brokered several days earlier by her pimp back in New York. . . .

Spitzer was a regular with Emperor, according to the complaint that contains the extraordinary details of the governor's tryst with the curvy bombshell: haggling over the price - and a down payment on future services - as well as the kind of sex the governor wanted. (Emphasis added.)

Good writing doesn't waste time with useless adjectives, and good reporting sticks to the facts. According to the affidavit, "Kristen" is 5-foot-5 and 105 pounds. Even though Emperor VIP advertised her as "petite," 5-foot-5 is about average height. My wife is 5-foot-6, and would never describe herself as "petite," a description that generally should be reserved for women 5-foot-2 or less.

"Kristen" is not petite. She is slender, slim or thin. If the writers at the Post want an elegant word for a skinny woman, they might try willowy, or perhaps coltish.

"Kristen" was advertised as "very pretty," but on what basis do the Post writers turn that datum into "stunningly sexy"? Have they met this woman? Is she really that hot? Are they writing a news story or promotional copy for a new DVD re-release of Pretty Woman? And what the heck kind of adverb is "stunningly," anyways?

The Post writers then go on to declare that "Kristen" and Spitzer engaged in "steamy sex." Really? Have they seen a video, or what? I would have a tough time applying the word "steamy" to any sexual act involving Eliot Spitzer, who ain't exactly Brad Pitt. Aesthetic judgments aside, there is no factual basis for the Post writers to say whether the sex in Room 871 on Feb. 13 was "steamy" or not. It's just another wasted adjective.

The real clunker in the Post story comes when the writers decide that the 5-foot-5, 105-pound "Kristen" -- whom they've previously (and erroneously) described as petite -- is now worthy of designation as a curvy bombshell.

No. No. No. A thousand times no. Whatever else you say about a woman who's 5-foot-5 and 105 pounds, she is most definitely not a "curvy bombshell." To have any serious curves, much less "bombshell" curves, a woman who's 5-foot-5 would have to weigh at least 15 pounds more than "Kristen."

Excuse me for venting so much spleen on a few paragraphs of this one article, but it's bad writing, and bad writing annoys me.

UPDATE IV: Holy crap! $80,000 worth of hookers?

The Associated Press, quoting unnamed law enforcement officials, said Spitzer's running tab for the trysts could have been as high as $80,000.

Wow. Spitzer was the Charlie Sheen of governors. After he resigns tomorrow, Spitzer should hop a flight to L.A. and become a Hollywood movie producer. He'd fit right in.

UPDATE V: Just woke up, checked the Site Meter and discovered that somebody had reached my blog by Googling "Spitzer" and "unsafe acts." Obviously, someone's curiosity was aroused by reports that the governor of New York was considered a "difficult" client, known to request that prostitutes "do things you might not think were safe."

What kinky and unsanitary vice was involved? Perhaps it was some kind of group scene, a sort of fantasy-fulfillment fetish involving Greg Gutfeld and Kerry Howley (who've been known to talk about hookers):

UPDATE VI: What is it with Kerry Howley and hookers?

I’m fascinated by the Spitzer-inspired discussion of prostitution on blogs that identify as feminist, most of which seem to be conflicted but marginally pro-decriminalization.

Miss Howley then struggles to discover what might be called a "pro-sex" feminist lesson in the case of "Kristen" and Gov. Charlie Sheen, to wit:

Anti-prostitution laws add a layer of legal sanction to all of our worst intuitions about the treatment of sexually independent women; they strengthen and validate the idea that women who bed men with any frequency are sick, marginal, pariahs.

OK, Miss Howley: Is it the laws or the idea with which you are arguing here? Arguing about laws is fair game, and no one's feelings get hurt. It's just politics, right? However, when it comes to your argument against the idea (which you caricature rather unfairly) of chastity as a virtue, and promiscuity as a vice, you seem strangely ... intolerant.

Don't people have the right to their own opinions? If so, then they have the right to hold sluts in low esteem. You seem to be suggesting, Miss Howley, that people who have a negative opinion of sluts -- or, to employ your euphemism, "sexually independent women" -- are all reactionary lowbrows or moralistic prudes, unfit for polite society. But if "polite society" is to be limited to those who enthusiastically approve of rampant sluttishness, well, it's going to be a rather small society (and not very polite, since it will include lots of "Girls Gone Wild" and Britney Spears fans).

As Ayn Rand might say, you need to re-examine your premise.