Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens. – Lord Beveridge
Syracuse, New York is about 300 kilometers from New York City; not exactly commuting distance, even for a serial killer. Still, one would think that the Syracuse police would have something better to do with their time and money than to emulate the tactics and rhetoric of suburban Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which is almost twice as distant. As we’ve discussed before on several occasions, the prohibitionist antics of Pittsburg area cops have turned them into heavily-armed clowns: ludicrous, but dangerous. They devote absurd amounts of manpower and scandalous sums of money to persecuting whores, then issue ignorant and asinine statements to the press…and it looks like the police of Syracuse are following in their footsteps, as demonstrated in this April 25th article from the Syracuse Post-Standard:
Syracuse prostitutes and patrons seeking their services have increasingly turned to the Internet and escort ads to avoid detection, meaning fewer prostitutes walking the streets. Syracuse Police Sgt. Jim Staub estimated nearly 90 percent of the city’s prostitution trade has gone online over the past year or two. So last fall, the police vice squad decided to follow the prostitutes into cyberspace. The vice unit’s five-month sting recently led to the misdemeanor arrests of 17 suspected prostitutes and 19 men accused of seeking sex for money. More arrests are expected, police said…
You’ve got to be impressed in a weird sort of way with people who are so aggressively ignorant and unselfconsciously stupid that they actually boast about it. As regular readers know, 85% of prostitution was already non-street-based even before the advent of the internet, and though some streetwalkers have indeed turned to internet advertising the statement that “90 percent of the city’s prostitution trade has gone online over the past year or two” demonstrates a truly stupefying level of ignorance, even for a cop. Note also the typical police insistence on framing everything as it appears to their warped minds; whores and clients are said to use the internet to “avoid detection”, despite the fact that they themselves admit (in the paragraph below) that “the ads are not concealed.” I suppose the Super-brains of Syracuse also believe that the owners and customers of Amazon.com are trying to “avoid detection” as well. It never occurs to the sick police psyche that ALL businesspeople use the most effective means of advertising available, and that indoor sex work is safer on every level. Their insistence on trying to predict escort-client behavior by a fallacious model of criminality is the reason this undoubtedly expensive operation only managed to catch fewer than 20 each of hookers and clients over five months:
To catch them, detectives posted ads and responded to ads in the adult sections of Backpage.com, Escort.com and the Syracuse New Times, said Staub, who led the investigation. The ads are not concealed and “don’t leave much to the imagination,” he said…The police set up an apartment for an undercover officer to meet the prostitute or patron, then recorded that person agreeing to a trade of sexual favors for money. Detectives appeared and asked the suspect for identification, then let him or her go. Only after the sting was over did the police make arrests, authorities said. Lt. John Corbett, head of the vice squad, said the police caught more suspects by waiting to arrest. Hiding the undercover operation was crucial. For example, a suspected prostitute became suspicious and warned others online about the police operation, Corbett said. After that, officers had to change tactics and move locations.
You might wonder how these Brainiacs imagined that letting people go actually got them more arrests, but that’s because you aren’t a hopeless lawhead. Because prostitutes and clients are defined as criminals, lawheads expect them to act like criminals, and cops define themselves as “better” than criminals. They imagine that by changing hotel rooms but keeping the same strategy us poor, drug-addled whores and our sexually-depraved clients wouldn’t be able to figure it out; I’m sure what really happened is that everyone knew Syracuse was “hot”, and that the handful they captured were mostly girls who were too desperate to be careful and guys (13 of the 19 were out-of-towners) who failed to do their homework.
…Police contend that prostitution is hardly the victimless crime that some people say it is. [Police Chief Frank] Fowler said police get complaints about prostitutes, including from residents who see people coming and going from locations where tricks are taking place. And Corbett said prostitution can lead to more serious crimes, many of which aren’t reported truthfully. Those crimes can include larcenies, robberies, assaults and extortion…Fowler said he hoped that publishing the patrons’ names would be a deterrent to all those who visited prostitutes in the city. “They go about their daily lives disguising this behavior — bringing this behavior to their unsuspecting families and workplaces,” Fowler said. Those who weren’t caught now know that the police are serious about catching them, he said.
Blah blah blah evil degraded whores, blah blah attracts crime, blah blah public nuisance…and I assume that melodramatically vague comment about “unsuspecting families” is a reference to the diseases we supposedly spread. News flash, Chief Fowler: We already know you’re serious about “catching” us. What we can’t understand is why so many people are eager to swallow your lies and to allow you to indulge your sadistic sexual fantasies at public expense instead of doing the job you’re paid to do, namely catching actual criminals.
I was amazed at this line:
Five months for misdemeanors??? I’d like to see a Cost-Benefit Analysis on that versus, say, a murder investigation.
They must be growing money on trees up there to spend money on five months’ investigation time on misdemeanors.
Replace “prostitute” with “sub-prime mortgage lender”.
Police contend that sub-prime mortage lending is hardly the victimless crime that some people say it is. [Police Chief Frank] Fowler said police get complaints about mortage lenders, including from residents who see people coming and going from locations where mortgages are taking place. And Corbett said sub-prime mortgage lending can lead to more serious crimes, many of which aren’t reported truthfully. Those crimes can include larcenies, robberies, assaults and extortion…Fowler said he hoped that publishing the borrowers’ names would be a deterrent to all those who visited sub-prime mortgage lenders in the city. “They go about their daily lives disguising this behavior — bringing this behavior to their unsuspecting families and workplaces,” Fowler said. Those who weren’t caught now know that the police are serious about catching them, he said.
Let’s chase the real criminals, shall we? Oh, that would involve some work. Well fuck that! Where’s the goddamn Krisy Kreme shop?
Or how about this:
Civil rights advocates contend that police brutality is hardly the isolated incident that police say it is. A spokesman for the ACLU said the organization gets complaints about police, including from residents who film police abusing and beating people in public locations. And the spokesman said ignoring such abuses can lead to more serious crimes, many of which aren’t reported truthfully. Those crimes can include larcenies, robberies, assaults and extortion…the spokesman said he hoped that publishing the offending cops’ names would be a deterrent to all the other cops who work in the city. “They go about their daily lives disguising this behavior — bringing this behavior to their unsuspecting families and workplaces,” he said. Those cops who haven’t been caught on camera yet now know that advocates are serious about catching them, he said.
Ah, Maggie, any excuse to use a rendition of Braniac by the magnificent Curt Swan…
On a more serious note, what kinda supercops only nab 17 online prostitues in 5 months? That’s pathetic. It’s bad enough that they waste good money on pursuing prostitutes, but that’s the best they could do?
Not that I want them to be any more successful, but that shouldn’t be held up as an honor… but rather hidden in shame.
LOL about Brainiac; I do enjoy using pictures from comics. Be sure to look in Monday for a depiction of the lovely Alanna of Ranagar by the immortal Carmine Infantino. 🙂
But as for their bragging about such a pathetic failure, that’s exactly what I meant by saying “You’ve got to be impressed in a weird sort of way with people who are so aggressively ignorant and unselfconsciously stupid that they actually boast about it.” 😐
This story might be right up your alley… Clueless wonders in Massachusetts legislature propose even more clueless law that “would define the people who manage prostitutes, or ‘pimps,’ as ‘human traffickers”.
Hat tip to Jacob Sullum of reason.
The Swedish Model comes to Massachusetts. Did you notice that chilling line, “The penalty for prostitutes, one year in jail, would remain the same, although it would be reserved for those who refused the state’s ‘help’ in changing professions”? The word “re-education” comes to mind… 🙁
Sex for money = bad.
Sex for jewelry, dinners out and a place to live = good.
The difference is really a matter of what currency they deem appropriate.
Even sex for money isn’t illegal if one does it on camera, or excuses it with a marriage license. And even TIME without sex for money, or just “looking like a prostitute”, is “bad” if they think they can make it stick. These laws aren’t about “protecting” anybody; they’re about subjugating female sexuality, one of the few forces strong enough to challenge religion and government.
They’re also about subjugating the average guy, don’t forget. The average guy gets busted for attempting to pull off what Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen do regularly. If the women with these men don’t fit the definition of prostitutes, no one does.
This is also about making sure only rich guys get access to women who they can pay for — wonder if the cops realize they’re enforcing class differences.
You’re absolutely right, and I’ve written about that before.
As for the cops, they’re just as happy to enforce class differences as the bandits who followed Chinese warlords or the henchmen of European noblemen. There’s never a shortage of brutal, low-class men who are happy as long as they can lord it over the other peasants and have plenty of opportunities to rape and loot. 🙁
The poor men deserve sex also. That’s 1 reason I’ve done things the way I have with sex only friendships. Please realize there’s men who are poor through no fault of their own (disability is 1 example of this). There’s also men who are starting out in the working world and it can take time to make enough $ to live on their own, etc. I find it totally evil, arrogant and cruel that anyone thinks that men without enough $ don’t deserve and won’t GET sex. EVERY man I met when I had sex only friendships told me he didn’t get enough sex. I was floored by this and also disgusted. I noticed the few women I met never said they didn’t get enough sex. Yes, I learned this later in life than most, but am glad I LEARNED. I needed to. I was glad to help them out in this area, to be honest!
Devil’s advocate, Laura: Do you feel that men should also give away money to unattractive women on the principle that all women deserve to be supported by men just as all men deserve sex from women?
Dear Maggie, there’s a huge difference between giving away sex and giving away enough money to pay a person’s bills. Giving away sex is a lot less complicated and plain easier than paying all of a person’s bills. The IDEAL to me is that people do give sex as freely as money. But, I also know that at least some don’t want to do this just like some don’t want to help anyone out with money either. Personally, this way of life isn’t for me. It used to be, but I broke out of that and will never go back. I think if people want to give sex and/or money that’s WONDERFUL, but they shouldn’t be literally forced to either.
I disagree. My sexual service was worth $300/hour on the fair market, therefore for a man to give a woman $300 is the exact economic and moral equivalent of my giving a man sex. We are both donating time and effort to another person.
If I were a wealthier man (say, wealthy enough to afford $300/hour call girls), I suspect that there are cases where I would give somebody $300. I’ve been known to give away $5 to strangers, and a tininsy bit more to charitable organizations, every great now and then.
In any case, $300 isn’t going to pay all your bills, or mine.
Laura, if you are both willing and able to give away sex, or food, or computer programming or helicopter flying skills, great. It is to your credit when you give something of value to somebody who needs it and who ordinarily would be unable to acquire it himself. But this in no way denigrates those who are paid to fly helicopters, to cook food, to program computers… or to have sex.
Please realize that NOT ALL women fall into these 2 camps (thank God!). Also, not everyone thinks the women who don’t specifically charge for sex but DO use their looks, etc., to get things (including money) are OK. I’ve hated that ###*** since I was a teenager and resolved to never be part of it. I also resolved to never charge a cent specifically for sex and have kept to that also along with keeping sex as FREE (in the money/material sense) as possible. I’m not alone in hating the using looks, etc., thing to get stuff. Yes, I know many do this and not only revel in it but aren’t even embarrassed to brag about it. But, that doesn’t mean all are this way.
I respect the people who swing a hammer or work a saw for Habitat for Humanity. But I don’t have anything against carpenters who work for pay.
I respect the people who run soup kitchens to feed those who can’t afford food. But I don’t have anything against restaurants where you pay for a meal, nor against supermarkets where you buy food.
If prostitution were legal, perhaps there would be some Whores for Humanity organization which would provide reduced-cost or even free sex for the men who are poor.
An economy where products and services are bought and sold is an economy which can support charity.
Dear Sailor B, I’m with you on this. We’ve talked a few times about a group that gives the men who are poor sex for free and how that could be legal. I think it’s a wonderful idea. It’s something I’d get involved in (not to replace my job…wink…but I’d put in some effort from my spare time), but I’d keep the restrictions on who I’d see and not see like I have with personal ads. I also think a Whores for Humanity thing is a wonderful idea. Personally, any business that’s making a profit and doesn’t give a cent away and/or any of their products makes me sick. I think it’s a disgrace. Imagine how much better the world would be if every company who has a profit gave some along with every person who could spare even a few $. I’m with you on that it’s also OK to sell things/provide services to make a living. 1 huge advantage of this is it keeps those people from being a drain on society.
“90 percent of the city’s prostitution trade has gone online over the past year or two.”
That sentence would be more accurate if the article had been written in, say, 2004.
I bet these internet geniuses are still using AOL.
I’d imagine that that’s it exactly, but what exactly is meant by “bringing this behavior to their unsuspecting families and workplaces” [emphasis added]? How do you bring “this behavior” (it used to be called “being a whoremonger”) to your workplace? Exactly what kind of jobs do these men have?
I suspect that’s part of the whole “criminality” garbage. Cops love to claim that “criminals don’t specialize”, which is the excuse they and prosecutors use to “crack down” on victimless “crimes”. Their lawhead “reasoning” goes like this: “If something is illegal it’s evil, so only evil people would do it. And someone who’s capable of one evil is capable of another.” In other words, anyone who would dare to smoke weed or hire a hooker is capable of theft, embezzlement, assault, arson, rape, fraud or murder. Hence the “workplace” comment; he’s implying a man who hires an escort will probably steal from the company, etc.
Makes more sense than anything I can think of. People really are supposed to outgrow that sort of thing, though. I’ve been playing around with a story about a twelve year old crime fighter, and I wrote this, largely as a note to myself:
Freeping sanctimonious government thugs! Whenever I hear stories such as this, I see red for a moment and want to pick up the nearest lethal weapon. Then I calm down a bit, and STILL want to pick up the nearest lethal weapon. No, I’m not going to advocate violence, but will ask the rhetorical question, “What form of communication will be required for government thugs to understand that a free people will not accept others trying to run their lives?”
What bugs me more than anything else is that people like this still pay lip service to America’s philosophical founders, who clearly would run screaming from what the U.S. has become today.