What! Would you make no distinction between hypocrisy and devotion? Would you give them the same names, and respect the mask as you do the face? Would you equate artifice and sincerity? Confound appearance with truth? Regard the phantom as the very person? Value counterfeit as cash? – Molière, Tartuffe (I, v)
The internet has made it much more difficult to lie about an entire group of people; now that everyone can blog, “tweet” and otherwise self-publish the members of that group can speak up for themselves, thus revealing the truth for everyone to see. As I pointed out in “Objectification Overruled”,
…the average person doesn’t deal with members of any given minority nearly as often as with members of the majority, and if hate or fear toward that group can be maintained he isn’t likely to have an intimate enough relationship with any of its members to learn that the prejudice and propaganda are false. If black people or Jews are segregated into ghettos and prohibited from frequent interaction with the majority, members of that majority don’t get the opportunity to learn the truth about them; and if homosexuals and whores are criminalized they are afraid to expose themselves…
The internet, however, allows whores to write about our lives without revealing our legal names to cops and prosecutors, and blogs like this one expose large numbers of people to the fact that most hookers are pretty much like anyone else, with a wide variety of temperaments, personalities, interests, educational levels, personal histories, etc. Needless to say, this makes prohibitionists very angry; their whole strategy relies on convincing the public that the vast majority of us are broken dolls with bad childhoods, a history of sexual abuse, poor education and a total absence of other options (either because of extreme deprivation or because we were literally enslaved by evil “pimps”). As I’ve pointed out to a number of journalists, can you imagine prohibitionists using me as a poster child? “This poor, eloquent, 33-year-old masters-degreed librarian with high self esteem had no choice but to accept sexual slavery?” They’d be laughed out of the marketplace of ideas so fast their pointy heads would spin. No, they have to make it seem as though people like me are fabulous beasts in stark contrast to emotionally damaged “child” prostitutes who are regularly dragged down streets behind pimps’ cars without sustaining life-threatening injuries or being seen by any witnesses. But how can they accomplish that when there are so many of us telling the truth? “Well, Maggie’s not representative, nor is Brandy, nor Kelly, nor Emily, nor Aspasia, nor Norma Jean, nor Brooke, nor Audacia, nor Tracy, nor Charlotte, nor Elena, nor Cheryl, nor Melissa, nor Sina, nor Ariane…” It begins to get pretty damned unbelievable as that list increases in length.
When I was in library school I once did a research paper on collection packing; I called it “Censorship by Commission” (as opposed to traditional censorship, which is accomplished by omission). Collection packing is when an unethical librarian purchases (with library funds) a large number of books representing a minority view, so that a casual library patron will believe that view is more mainstream than it actually is. For example, an unscrupulous creationist librarian might obtain as many books on “scientific creationism” as she could find and file them alongside books on geology and evolutionary theory, instead of consigning them to the religion section or the 001.9 ghetto where they belong. Prohibitionists do this as well; they present the “reframed experiences” of “survivors” to support their claims, but since these are a small minority the usual approach (as practiced by Farley, Kristof, et al) is to present the same stories over and over again with slightly-altered details so as to “pack the collection” of available narratives.
This can only go so far against the huge number of vocal whores, however; even the most credulous of prohibitionist marks will eventually notice that while we regularly post new material and interact with our readers, the supposed plethora of “human trafficking victims” are represented only in third person. And so a new weapon has become necessary: the sock puppet. Every tool can be used for good or ill, and while the anonymity of the internet makes it possible for whores to speak out without fear of arrest or other persecution, it also allows trolls to set up multiple accounts so as to create phantom “supporters” of their views. Some writers and activists suspect that a number of “big names” are directly behind the ever-increasing number of supposed “survivors” who write in an eerily-similar manner and tend to tell the same stories, but I think it’s far more likely that some of the copious grant money flowing from the likes of the US State Department, the Hunt Alternatives Fund and Google is going to hire full-time shills (some “survivors” but most just ghostwriters) to write blogs, post in comment threads and insult activists on Twitter.
You may feel I’m being paranoid, but I have several strong reasons for believing this. First, the number of such accounts has increased dramatically in the past year; if terrible experiences in prostitution were common, one would’ve expected that the proportion of “survivor” narratives to “happy hooker” narratives would have remained relatively constant for the past decade (with perhaps a gradual increase as “trafficking” hysteria grew). But that isn’t the case; the proportion has instead grown quickly in just the last few months. Second, these narratives appear to pop up just where they can do the most damage (such as in places considering the Swedish Model) rather than in areas such as Australia where they wouldn’t have a great deal of effect. Third, they often seem to be targeted against specific writers; for example, few if any self-professed “prostituted women” ever called themselves “call girls” before, but since January the phrase (which is especially associated with the works of Tracy Quan, Brooke Magnanti and yours truly) is suddenly popping up in the blog titles and screen names associated with neofeminist-flavored anti-sex worker propaganda. Finally (and in my mind most damningly), the style of many of these accounts is the same: they use the same terms, the same tactics and the same idiosyncratic phrases; they rely on the same propaganda techniques and commit the same logical fallacies; and they tend to tell the same stories and rely on the same sources (though this last is true of most anti-sex worker activists). These various online personas are either maintained by one small group of prohibitionists, or else a somewhat larger group of professionals working from a style sheet as the writers of Doc Savage and Tom Swift books did. But in either case, the result is the same: a number of mysterious “women” who share similarly stylized and melodramatic pimp-dominated “histories” in prostitution, and whose blogs, comments and “tweets” all bear the unmistakable odor of dirty socks.
One Year Ago Today
“Mind Reading” looks at “authorities” who claim to be able to read minds and unerringly discern the motives of people they wish to persecute.
it always annoyed me that in almost every portrayal of sex workers even by amazing authors or film makers the whore is either an evil person or a virtuous woman who is the victim of a pimp or circumstances and should be pitied and saved.how people view sex workers depends also highly on their political views as well,for the ”right wingers”we fall into the immoral,the lazy category.for leftists and especially for the good for nothing communists we are victims and the proof for everything that is wrong with society, especially for the latter our existence is a proof of the evilness of the middle and upper classes,but we cant even concider ourselves to be proletariats, because theese are revolutionists ,we are only victims.i think that in the u.s the problems you face with decriminalization has a lot to do with theese two extreme views on sex work,for the conservatives,it shouldnt be decriminalized,because its immoral and sets a bad example for the children.for leftists(although they are not really socialists or even communists,the u.s or even the e.u has nothing to do with socialism)we are victims to be rescued via the swedish model.
I’m hoping that many conservatives will “come around” and become “hip” to the folly of prohibitionist laws. In reality – THEY HATE THEM – when they involve firearms, or sugary sodas, or anything else that THEY like to involve themselves in. Logically – it should only be a matter of time before they realize that it’s impossible to fight off the prohibitionist laws they don’t like – while trying to maintain the ones they do. They all have to go away.
And – as far as the religious – who’s a more pious follower? The person who navigates a life around sin and maintains his/her faithfulness to their beliefs – or one who is raised and lives in “pious” society free of “sin” – one who is never “tempted”? It would seem to me that if the great religions are correct – then the world is really meant for “temptation” and testing the “believers”.
There are tons of Republican politicians who think that prohibitionist laws are ridiculous and act accordingly in their personal lives. (In fact, I tend to think there are more genuine prudes in the Democratic party than in the Republican party, although both parties have their share of partiers.) However, none of them is going to come out against prohibition because they like being Senators, Governors or whatever. (Probably the best recent example I can think of is former Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who thought most of this stuff was ridiculous and was a Goldwater style Republican. It didn’t matter, no way was he going to say, “Don’t you think these laws we have about prostitution are absurd?” in public.)
Besides which, if you are an important politician the prohibition laws don’t effect you as much. Lobbyists are known to keep nice looking women on their staff who will do “whatever it takes” to get the laws their sponsors want passed. That’s when they don’t just hire local escorts to take care of the politicians they want to influence.
its true that if politicians of any party hold publically such a view,they put their positions at great risk.ive heard obama has lost voters since he openly supported gay marriage,and gay rights are much more supported by the general public than sex workers rights are ,although im not sure if it has hurt him all that much,since i doubt that the more conservative states voted for obama at the first place,both for political reasons and still some dont like the fact that they have a black president.as a side note it drives me insane that the same people who say they respect gays and blacks say they cant respect sex workers or sexually open women,because especially the latter chose to be that way,while blacks and gays didnt.”respecting”sb because they had no choice is not actual respect,its pity.
This is changing. Ron Paul has a fanatical following and he’s strongly for decriminalizing prostitution – which is why he got the endorsement of Nevada’s prostitutes and one brothel started a program called “Pimpin’ for Paul”. LOL
It’s only going to take ONE articulate national politician with balls and this train will head down the track quick. There’s a lot of stories out right now about Mayor Bloomberg of New York City and his “nanny policies” of banning foods that he thinks are unhealthy. There is really a lot of anger out there in Conservative circles over Bloomberg – but I told the conservatives on one blog I visit a lot – that I support Bloomberg and will henceforth and forever forward SUPPORT ALL prohibitionist laws that Conservatives hate. And the reason I’ll do this is because they support prohibitionist laws that I hate. We can all come together – realize this is a folly – and get rid of all prohibitionist laws – or we can continue this circle jerk into eternity.
As far as Obama losing votes over his gay marriage stance …
IF he has lost votes – it’s not because of his stance it’s because of …
1. He flip-flopped. He said over and over again during the 2008 campaign he was against gay marriage, now – only months from what will be a very tough reelection for him – he suddenly has a “magical epiphany” and now supports gay marriage (personally). His motivations here are completely transparent to any idiot but there’s more …
2. His announcement that he personally supports gay marriage is a bullshit cop-out, and even harms the gay marriage cause because Obama has also said that gay marriage is a STATE ISSUE. Currently 44 states ban gay marriage by state law and now Obama has personally ratified their right to do so. What Obama said basically was … “Hey I LOVE the idea of gay marriage personally but … heh, let’s leave that issue to the states okay?” And there are 44 states around the nation that are applauding that announcement.
3. When Arizona passed an anti-illegal immigrant law – Obama’s Justice Department went swiftly into legal action to get the law declared unconstitutional. They are still fighting that law tooth and nail. However – with 44 states now banning gay marriage – how many of those state laws are being challenged by Obama and his Justice Department? To my knowledge – not a single one.
Bullshit walks – and if Obama is losing in the polls over gay marriage – it’s not because of his “personal” support for it – it’s because people recognize the bullshit reasons he made the announcement – and they’re also able to recognize that his announcement has no “meat” in it and actually hurts the gay rights cause.
In middle school, I thoroughly enjoy the Tom Swift, Jr. books, and had no idea that there was a Tom Swift, Sr. series before that.
I didn’t discover Doc Savage until my thirties, though I had seen him mentioned in a short story, where the villain used his new-found ability to control his body’s systems to make himself look like “Conan and Doc Savage rolled together.”
I woke up early and couldn’t get back to sleep. Ah well. I’m off to do grooming now, so that I look presentable this first day.
all bear the unmistakable odor of dirty socks….
Specifically in Kristoff’s case they are very dirty……oh so very, very dirty. *pukes*
Here’s a thought: when someone identifies one, try to DM them click-through links to a page not otherwise published on your blog and collect the IP addresses (as per Bloggerheads’ unveiling the TabloidTroll account here http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2012/04/dennis-rice-tabloid-troll/ ) Might make interesting reading.
“A prominent British historian has admitted that he has been publishing hostile comments about rival historians at Amazon.co.uk under a pseudonym.” In 2007, John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, was caught using a sock puppet to predict a dark future for Wild Oats Markets. Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Michael Hiltzik lost his column in the Los Angeles Times in 2006 when the publisher concluded he had replied to online critics using a pseudonym.
pseudonym. ”
http://www.thenation.com/blog/historian-trouble-orlando-figes-and-his-sock-puppet
You never know!
British journalist Johan Harri is accused of doing a similar thing – he set up a pen name simply to attack people on wikipedia that he disagreed with (!!?).
That and he was recently done for plagiarism.
I will write more. However, I respectfully request your permission to use information from the first three paragraphs for a personal legal pleading. Nonetheless, please consider that an individual advocating publicly or anonymously for a despised group has far less of an affect than the fear-anxiety-damage and suppression of spirited advocacy induced upon the out-group when authorities (under the cover of the law or motivated simply by unjust unfounded prejudice) attack, marginalize, demonize, infantilize, ostracize, or unfairly label just one member of the despised group. All it takes is one public humiliation, one public shunning, one public excommunication, one public persecution and one public hanging. So, feeling paranoid is its own shield of self-protection and almost certainly will be used against you as a sign that justifies the hurt, abuse and cruelty which will soon be heaped upon you by the authoritarians and their followers. And finally a question, Maggie. I dated a prostitute for the past 11 years although, she didn’t reveal that part of her history until 6 months ago. So, why can’t I remove her from my DNA, from my soul.
I had thought about applying for that job with the Hunt Alternative Fund several weeks ago as their “Demand Abolition Managing Director”. How ironic would that be?
I don’t think it’s a shill. I think it’s ‘reeducation’. Or maybe, it’s a lot of ‘cross-fertilization.’ It’s a lot of well-funded, institutionalized cross-fertilization.
A document on CATW’s website, a speech by Dorchen A. Leidholdt, is really emblematic of what I’m talking about. At the heart of the speech is Sarah, a woman who was abused, trafficked into prostitution at 14, pimped, got an STD & not can’t have kids because of that. Leidholdt met Sarah while working at a Rape Victim’s Center.
Leidholdt writes “I had taught Sarah about feminist theory; now she taught me about the lives of women and girls in prostitution.” Later she writes: “Sarah left Women Against Pornography to found the first organization of prostitution survivors to fight the sex industry.”
http://action.web.ca/home/catw/readingroom.shtml?x=53793
So I think that that is what’s going on, but on a much larger, more institutionalized scale. It’s basically Women Against Pornography – Act Two- with more experience, a lot of right-wing-conservative money, law degrees, positions at major universities and in the government.
I think a part of Demand Abolition’s ‘strategy plan’ is to provide resources to victims so that they can be the voices of the campaign against prostitution.
I don’t doubt that a good number of people have horrific experiences in this industry. I think the stigma can make even happy hookers start to view themselves as victims. Um, so I think…you’re pimped. You get arrested, then you wind up in a half-way house for hookers. you learn to think of your past experiences through the lens of abolitionists. If you’re an especially smart person, the individuals who run these organizations give you special training…basically provide you with a script of what to say to the press and what to say at benefits and what to say on your blog… And hell, if you’ve been in low-end prostitution all your life, and treated like shit by cops & the general public, being the spokesperson of a campaign against the sex trade and repeatedly being recognized as a hero is a pretty good gig. It’s also an instant ‘out’ from status of ‘social outcast.’
I think that is what’s going on.
And of course, it’s a positive feedback loop. The more ‘survivors-demanding-abolition,’ the more legislation along end-demand lines, the more funding for rescue shelters, the more survivors-demanding-abolition, the more legislation along end-demand lines, the more funding for rescue-model, not harm-reduction services…
All right, let’s think for a minute of a job where men are brutalized, beaten for the entertainment of others, and where the “victims” often end up with lasting physical damage- Oh, and they make a lot of money along the way. It’s called professional boxing, and men do it, voluntarily. And it’s legal.
Look, sometimes there are unpleasant parts of working in porn, and prostitution. Like any other job, occasionally there are parts of the job that one may not particularly enjoy, and there are risks to it. While the risks can be reduced, and would be if it were legal, I don’t know that it can ever be made risk free. And like any intensely physical job, there can be occasional physical harm. It’s not a job for everyone, and certainly not for a 14 year old. And yes, there are abuses.
But the same is true for any other job out there. Workers suffer physical harm doing construction work, yet we’re still building buildings. Jobs often involve doing things you don’t always enjoy. There will be abuse in work as long as the capitalists are in charge.
But we focus on sex work, because it’s about sex, which we in the USA seem to have a immature fascination with, and it’s way for women to independently make a lot of money. We look at it in ways we don’t look at other jobs.
Are people trafficked? Yes., occasionally. And even more are trafficked for farm work, domestic work, and factory work. But a hysterical obsession with sex work won’t solve that. Making sex work more illegal, and harder won’t solve it. If we were serious about attacking the abuses, we’d be listening to the majority of sex workers, not the sock puppets and self appointed experts.
Mining too. Black Lung has made a comeback in traditional underground mining, because the bosses find it cheaper to do without safety gear.
The focus on sex work in the US probably also has a lot to do with independence. They hate it when you can work independently. When I was attending college there were a couple of Chinese girls running a food truck selling some good tasting chicken dishes. Then Marriott got the college food concession, and suddenly there were all kinds of new regulations on campus that the food truck couldn’t follow. (Like having an on premises restroom.) It was obviously being done for the sole purpose of shutting it down.
You’ll find this is true with using any skill that you control by yourself to make a living as an independent contractor as opposed to working for some large entity. Of course, prudery adds a hysterical psychological edge too it, but it’s also about eliminating independence among the workers.
Became aware of collection packing a few years ago when I saw my local library system had many copies of a politician’s bio. I stopped counting at 50. I have never known anyone who bought this book or who has mentioned reading it.
Dean Clark
I was thinking about why so many politicians are so hypocritical about sex work as some other commentators and was struck by the similar between that attitude and some arguments around privatization.
Prostitution is something that cannot be ended, but that is, in a way, bad because that means there are no direct, immediate negatives to abusing it. A sort of tragedy of the commons.
A private sector can be destroy by over taxation but prostitution will never be eliminated. So there aren’t any disincentives to making it illegal or placing restrictions on it, in terms of personal difficulties.
So selling out sex workers to prohibitionists has no downsides. They get the votes and the services.
But just singling out politicians is minimizing the issue, because clients, especially those that hire the most expensive escorts, have so much power (A group probably larger than both parties) that they don’t seem to be on a higher moral standing.
I damn near lost it at the sock puppets! LOL!
Yes, according to abolitionists, I am not only “unrepresentative” but I’m pretty much the lovechild of a unicorn and Bigfoot: an educated, sane, empowered whore who is also a mixed race woman of color from an ‘urban’ environment without a pimp and not on drugs. I am definitely not supposed to exist within their narrative.
you sound like the woman i’ve “dated” for the past 11 years. (chuckle please). no way to remove her from soul. BTW, you “do” exist, thank gawd.
Saying any whore isn’t “representative” is as disgusting, arrogant and wrong as saying any non-whore woman who helps men out sexually isn’t “representative”. It isn’t just the whores who get this ###***, unfortunately. NO group should. Unfortunately, it’s common with non-whore women, Muslims, religious fundamentalists, etc. I could add to this list but won’t and the fact I could add to it is really sad and wrong. This goes with the ###*** lies: 1 person who doesn’t fit the unfair stereotypes is an exception (i.e., seen as a “write-off” and not wanted to be heard about to begin with…lol…gag); 1 person doesn’t count as far as making change in the world goes, etc., etc. Non-whore women who have never had an STD (gasp…eyeroll); never broken up the relationship and/or marriage of any men they’ve seen; are able to have sex without emotional attachment (that’s possible? Gasp…eyeroll); have limits on who they’ll date (you mean there’s 1’s who don’t date married and/or otherwise attached men? WOW…eyeroll) and specifically don’t charge for sex with it having nothing to do with their literal and/or willful brain power (that WONDERFUL (gag) belief that we’re either too literally dumb to charge $’s or willfully dumb to charge) ARE REAL. It’s very sad that individuals are “written off” so much in the world because the list of individuals who have changed the world for the better and/or worse is huge. Those who are constantly saying whatever person in whatever group isn’t “representative” might want to make the effort to interact with people in these groups instead of treating them like they’re invisible and/or demonizing them with ###*** arrogant stereotypes, etc. Thanks for listening.
You’re right. I think.
I’m not sure because, once again, you’ve written in a gushing, scrambled, stream-of-consciousness way in which the only thing which is obvious is that you are upset about something.
I know it’s annoying when I play writing critic, and I know that I don’t do it to everybody who maybe has it coming. But you see, I care more about you than anybody else, so I make the effort for you.
Again, I think you’re right.
Laura fussed at me for this post. And you know what? She was right to.
When we got to her place, I grabbed the trash and headed for the dumpster. In part, I did this because I’ve just gotten into the habit of doing that. But also, I wanted to get away from her and her fussing for a moment, and think it over. I needed a chance to get out of defense mode, which wasn’t going to happen while she was fussing at me, and think it over because I had this nagging feeling that maybe I really had done something wrong.
And once away from the fussing and able to think, I realized that I had in fact done something wrong. It wasn’t disagreeing with her; I said in the above post that she’s probably right and besides, people sometimes do disagree. And it wasn’t just that I had criticized her. I had, and I expected her to not like it (how many people actually enjoy being criticized?), and that was why I was so careful to word things nicely, and to make sure she got the point that I think she’s probably right. But the problem wasn’t that I’d criticized her, or that I wasn’t sufficiently polite. No, the problem was that I had publicly scolded her, like Big Daddy with a noisy child at the store. And that’s not right.
There are reasons I did that, and I want to state them here. Not because it makes what I did OK (what I did was not OK), but because the reasons do exist, and I want to set them out there.
You see, I love Laura. So very much, and I happen to think she’s pretty wonderful. Now of course I think she’s wonderful; I love her. But some other people do to, so my opinion of her is supported by people who are not in love with her like I am. And I want other people to see how wonderful she is. And then I read that thing she posted, and I worry that this isn’t making a good impression. That people will read it and think, “Wow, what a bitch. What’s she even trying to say?” And Laura isn’t a bitch, well not usually. And I don’t want people to get the wrong idea about her, so here I come fluttering in to try to correct things. And in so doing, I in effect say to her, “Hush little girl; do you want these people to think you’re a bad person?” And that’s not my place. I was motivated by love and a desire to have her seen well, but I didn’t show her the respect that a grown man should show a grown woman.
Of course she was offended, of course she was hurt. And of course she was embarrassed. This sort of thing is embarrassing to anybody above the age of about two. Laura isn’t two. Laura is in her forties, and at that age even her parents, were they still alive, shouldn’t do her that way. I damn sure shouldn’t. Who the hell do I think I am?
That’s why my attempt to word things nicely didn’t matter. No matter how well I word a public scolding, it’s still a public scolding, and I should never, ever, ever do that to the woman I love. Hell, I shouldn’t do it to anybody.
Now I’ve already apologized to Laura in person, but because I wronged her publicly, I wanted to apologize publicly as well. I cleared that with her before doing this.
Laura, I am sorry, and I have learned a lesson. Thank you for putting up with me.
Dear Sailor B, THANK YOU. Apology accepted. I love you too.
[kiss]
So long as societies are based around the nuclear family,it will be in the interests of those in power to suppress prostitution.
Perhaps with the increasing number of single parent families, and the Mens’ Rights (MGTOW) movements, this might change.
So long as societies are based around the nuclear family,it will be in the interests of those in power to suppress prostitution.
Perhaps with the increasing number of single parent families, and the Mens’ Rights (MGTOW) movement, this might change.
Sock puppets are an obvious weapon, used by every government in every war. Counter propaganda is the only way to fight this.
As you say Maggie, the internet allows sex workers to reach out. However, not everyone is interested in reading news and facts. How about a (free) prostitute run “true stories” site? Sort of like Penhouse Letters. Sexy tales witten (anonymously) by “real” prostitutes and other sex industry women (and men), with a forum section. It will allow your point of view to be presented in a “fictional” form and in a way that the public (men at least) will want to read. Kind of like Alt.Sex.Stories in the newsgroups or BDSM Library on the net.
A lot of escorts’ individual blogs are like that; some consist of little else. And though I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, I also don’t really think it serves any real normalization function; prohibitionists simply view it as porn.
My Lady! I am overwhelmed with shock, surprise, and indignation at your latest remarks:
“(A)n unscrupulous creationist librarian might obtain as many books on ‘scientific creationism’ as she could find and file them alongside books on geology and evolutionary theory, instead of consigning them to the religion section or the 001.9 ghetto where they belong.”
Does not the road to enlightenment require a fair hearing be offered to all notions, no matter how absurd? Is it so bad that people regularly give credence to the claims of creationists, or parapsychologists, or evolutionary psychologists, or whores who think prostitution should be illegal? After all, one would think that the more exposure the mainstream has to such crackpots, the more clearly they will become inured to the ridiculous notions they espouse.
Really. I mean Really!
To include such things so that people can see them is one thing, but to “pack” them in, while keeping out the serious stuff, is not a good thing to do.
[…] fakes. When sex workers as a group suggest that certain people may not be all they seem, that the “call girl” accounts all stink to high heaven, it is not the place of those on the outside to defend them, but instead to try to understand why […]
[…] fakes. When sex workers as a group suggest that certain people may not be all they seem, that the “call girl” accounts all stink to high heaven, it is not the place of those on the outside to defend them, but instead to try to understand why […]