Ignorance is not innocence but sin. – Robert Browning
One year ago today I published “Handy Figures”, a synopsis of numbers relating to prostitution issues with links to where that information can be found. None of that information is esoteric; most of it can be found online with a few minutes’ search, and the rest would be available in any decent library. So while the average person might lack the research skills to locate it, or the critical thinking skills that would enable him to realize he should look for it in the first place, one would hope neither of those things would be true about journalists. Alas, that would be a vain hope: with a few notable exceptions, investigative journalism is a lost art, and the bulk of the Fourth Estate is happy simply to swallow any lie put forth by politicians or special-interest groups; nor would the average reporter know how to find the proper information if he had a notion to. Still, even if that’s true of small media companies it’s almost inconceivable it could apply to the BBC, or Reuters, or The Australian; so when these sources release stories that 45 minutes of research would’ve invalidated, I have no choice but to assume they didn’t find the truth because they didn’t want to, which is a serious moral and ethical lapse.
The least of these sins is that of The Australian, both because it lacks the hefty reputation of the others and because the misinformation isn’t quite as obvious to the uninitiated or obtuse:
Drunken lads’ holidays in Thailand and Indonesia, involving unprotected sex with prostitutes, are boosting Queensland’s HIV rate. And men from north Queensland are picking up the virus from trips to nearby Papua New Guinea, a country with one of the world’s highest HIV rates. The alarming hike in the rate of human immunodeficiency virus, a forerunner to AIDs [sic], has led for calls to again push the safe-sex message amid fears young people are becoming lax…Australian Medical Association Queensland president Dr Richard Kidd said the increase in WA and Queensland was likely due to the mining boom in those states. “Young men, isolated from their families, earning lots of money – and whether they are going to Thailand and having sex with prostitutes or whether prostitutes are coming in from other countries, the data doesn’t quite tell us. But they are both legitimate concerns”…
Absolute total rubbish, was the response from Sexual Health Services specialist Dr Arun Menon to [newspaper claims]…that the rise in syphilis cases in the North West was due to dubious sex practices in illegitimate brothels in Mount Isa. “The problem isn’t with sex workers or brothels; it’s with young people aged 15 to 30…” Dr Menon said…
Now, HIV is not syphilis, but protection is protection and the condoms that prevent one will prevent the other; if the rise in syphilis isn’t due to hookers we can be relatively sure the rise in HIV isn’t either. And how does Dr. Kidd know the “drunken lads” got it from prostitutes? Did he see the viruses under the microscope wearing microbial fishnets and infinitesimal spike-heeled pumps? As usual, amateurs who just fall into sex without protection (because “good girls” don’t carry condoms) get a free pass while those “dirty whores” get the blame.
Reuters’ offense is far greater because its reputation demands it consult facts which have been fairly well-publicized rather than repeating urban legends:
Ukraine will use fighters and helicopters to guard its air space and put security and health services on full alert during the European soccer championship, but officials said on Tuesday they could do little to stem a likely flood of prostitutes…social and feminist watchdog groups like the Kiev-based Femen…say the Euro soccer tournament will only give a spurt to the already booming sex industry in Ukraine which demeans the international image of Ukrainian women…
Here, Reuters, let me help you: The myth that there is some lost tribe of harlots which wanders the Earth in pursuit of major sporting events is total and utter bullshit which has been disproven by researchers time and time again. Got it?
But the BBC’s behavior goes beyond the merely sinful; the garbage vomited out in this recent “investigation” rises to the level of full-scale criminal negligence in its reliance on rumors, repetition of US State Department “estimates” of unexplained derivation, willful misinterpretation of migration and sex work, use of inflammatory language, and embrace of “end demand” rhetoric, when all it had to do for the facts was contact the English Collective of Prostitutes or Dr. Laura Agustín. This is not new for the BBC; it sponsored the infamous one-sided “debate” at the “End Human Trafficking” event held in Mubarak’s Egypt (without a hint of irony) in December of 2010. But that was a year and a half ago, and the facts about “trafficking” have become much more accessible to the general public since then…yet the world’s largest news broadcaster continues to promote myths and lies rather than reporting politically-unpopular facts, thus demonstrating its commitment to propaganda and ignorance rather than information and truth.
Please tell me you aren’t just now noticing this! The media has an agenda and will lie it’s ass off to promote it. Look at Obama’s press – it’s not bad and it SHOULD BE atrocious. If this were G.W. Bush’s Presidency they’d still call it a “depression” – but with Obi – it’s a “Jobless Recovery” … really?! LOL
Yes Virginia, Ukrainian women are sooo damned HOT – that men will travel from the far corners of the Earth to pay them for sex. Pitty them, those poor girls!
I’m still trying to figure out how to get to the Ukraine to visit these “sorry” women – I’m still working on that problem. 😀
Of course I already knew that, but that doesn’t stop it from being a moral and ethical lapse. Politicians have been lying since the invention of democracy, but it’s still wrong when they do.
I thought libertarians thought both parties were the same and the press was on the side of the “collectivists”.
Also, what do you mean by LOLing at not calling it a depression any more.
The reasoning behind that is that it is most economic signs except unemployment are improving, so its recovering from where it is but not better yet. Making it a jobless recovery from the “Great Recession” the most commonly used term, which many left press argued should be called a depression.
Actually, it is a depression. A recession is when the rate of economic growth shrinks; when the economy itself shrinks (which is what happened, worldwide) that is a depression. And no, we’re not recovering from it yet; if you examine the history of the Great Depression you’ll find the were many “whorls and eddies”, so to speak, areas where the economy improved for a time while remaining bad in other places & sectors. As long as countries are still on the verge of economic collapse as Greece and Spain are, we are still in a depression (which is what the history books will call it; “Great Recession” my arse).
Well, the view I am most familiar with says that, while severe, the economic growth rate was never so bad as to actually go negative.
And we’ve have been in recovery from the recession since sometime in 2009.
Okay, so that doesn’t seem very smart. But if we are in a depression, why are people enacting Austerity measures?
In the UK, a recession is defined as two successive quarters (6 months) of “negative growth” of gross domestic product. I’m not sure if there is a UK definition of depression, but to the man in the street it certainly feels like one — and there is the €uro disaster as well. I think Keynes got it right — spend your way out of a depression; so what do we have all over Europe? Austerity, vast increases in unemployment — around 50% for 16 – 24 year olds in Spain and Greece, emigration from Ireland again…immense human misery; a return to soup kitchens; graduates who can only get work in bars etc…
I’m not impressed with Keynes, and I think that modern Keynesian views ignore the fact that the New Deal didn’t alleviate the Depression by one iota; it was cured by World War II. In other words spending for the sake of spending won’t do it; only spending to an end (even a destructive one) will. Even Marx understood that a government cannot actually create jobs; it can only move them around or steal them.
Well, Keynes said that government spending can fill the gap when private spending stops, so there’s no point in saying “it wasn’t government spending that ended the Depression, it was government spending in World War 2.” Same thing. His idea was if all else failed, pay people to dig holes and then fill them–the point being that it’s spending that matters, not its target. One can say otherwise but then it’s not Keynes’s ideas being debated.
From ’33 to ’37 unemployment was cut in half and GNP almost doubled, then in ’37 the government listened to the wrong people and cut back on New Deal programs which slowed growth and recovery a lot in the next few years. But when it was on, it worked very well.
Maggie, I’m sorry. I accidentally tried to troll you without asking for your real opinion.
In my other comment I asked
“But if we are in a depression, why are people enacting Austerity measures?”
Now, to a libertarian they’re doing that because government interference in the market is bad.
But it isn’t sold that way. Remember that libertarianism is not a popular philosophy, so just because a policy supported by libertarianism doesn’t mean its because people agree with the libertarian reason why.
Austerity is sold as a way of boosting confidence, that businesses are perfectly able to hire more people but they’re afraid of governments raising taxes on them. Of course, the government would raise taxes because it’s running a deficit, and wants to balance its budget. So the fear is that the government will start practicing sensible business practices.
So, there’s the real libertarian reason for Austerity and the more common reason that it’s nothing more than a confidence.
I assumed that you were one of the ones that defend Austerity under the confidence reason and wanted to point the absurdity of using Austerity measures to get out of a depression, where businesses aren’t simply waiting around because they’re scared.
Greece and Spain are both implementing Austerity measures, not to get government out of the private sector but basically jump through hoops for the EU’s amusement.
I agree 90%. David Friedman (libertarian economist and Milton’s son) points out on his blog that we do have historical proof that cutting national government spending ends depressions. President Harding did it in 1919.
But the euro countries are starting to fall into the same vicious circle that Latin America was in in the ’60s: because the population demanded welfare benefits, they didn’t cut them until forced to by a lack of funds available to borrow. When the crunch finally came it made poverty worse, which made the people need and demand more welfare, and riot when it didn’t come.
Results: tax revenue fell to near zero; all jobs moved “off the books”; welfare payments had to be funded by the printing press; and inflation at hundreds or thousands of percent per year. None of which even began to end until each of the democratic governments were replaced by a strongman dictator who could and would impose long-term austerity on the country. Without the likes of Pinochet and Perón, that economic ruin would still be there.
The rich countries have mostly avoided this problem up to now because we have much larger banking systems, so the limit on how much our leaders can borrow has been much farther away. But the run on the banks in the euro zone has been going for a month now, with no sign of stopping, so they are about to slam head-on into their limit like a brick wall.
I only hope our present Congress is watching and learning from their example, because the collapse of the dollar isn’t that far from unstoppable now either.
I looked up that blog post and you got the year wrong. Next Harding did reduce spending but that wasn’t the only thing that happened.
I can’t find any evidence of there being some kind of welfare crisis in Latin America in the 60s and have no idea how that would be possible in a third world country.
Pinochet and Peron never implemented anything like austerity. Yes, I know about the “Chicago Boys” and the “Miracle of Chile”.
I don’t agree with the capitalist dynamics you’ve described here.
Governments DO NOT have to raise taxes as a means of practicing “sensible business practices”. There is NO crisis in taxes – the government collects enough taxes. The problem is spending – the government spends too much money. You completely ignore the possibility that government can cut itself – rather than burdon it’s citizens with having to pay more to preserve it in an overly bloated state.
Yes – you can end a depression by cutting government – and the effect is more than simply a “confidence” effect.
I don’t understand this – government raises taxes on cigarettes to get people to quit smoking right? So government clearly believes ON ONE HAND that taxation schemes influence behavior of citizens.
So cutting government and providing tax CUTS during depressions not only sends a “confidence” signal … it also puts more dollars into the hands of citezens to invest and frees up more capital for companies to employ to hire new workers and grow their companies.
Regarding austerity measures in Greece and Spain – my friend, these nations have spent far too much money and are deeply in debt. What is your proposal to get them out of that debt? To spend MORE money?
This isn’t rocket science – they spent too much money and now have no money – they need to stop spending.
You misunderstood me – let’s avoid the political labels and simply look at the messages coming from the press – which was my point.
When Bush had GOOD economic news it was portrayed as BAD. Five percent unemployment combined with economic growth – which Bush had for many years – and the message from the press was “The numbers may look good – but people feel horrible!!”
Obama isn’t being held to the same standard.
Did you just make me DEFEND GW??? Oh – you owe me so bad now!!!
Well, I’m only 22 so I started understanding politics just as the recession started.
Your example didn’t work as well as your new one to illustrate your point, because it happened at the very end of Bush’s term, so nobody really knew how bad it was going to get. While now, the idea is that we’re in a really bad recovery that isn’t a depression. Four years after the stock market crash was when the recovery from the Great Depression started, but it was still really bad at the time.
I sometimes worry that when I attack Obama, people will think I have Republican sympathies, but I didn’t start writing this blog until 2010. Sailor Barsoom can attest to the fact that I was every bit as harsh on Bush when he was president.
Exactly – I’m not the least bit a fan of Bush as a domestic President and actually, I’m voting for Obama in November. It’s not because I like Obama and it’s not because I consider him the lesser of two evils. I’m voting for him because both clowns running are going to crash this nation and I’d rather have the blood on a Socialist’s hands – the backlash will be in the direction of liberatarianism / small government.
Could you tell me why you don’t like Rommey? Some of my friends are Republicans who try to act like libertarians and I wanted to get the real libertarian stance on the guy.
Also, Obama is not a Socialist, he’s a welfare statist at best. The welfare state was developed by Bismark in Germany as a counter to the appeal of socialism. Socialism is simply the idea that workers should own the means of production and is historically been hostile to the idea of Government. It is regarded as a way of letting rich people control the workers and Socialism was originally quite friendly with anarchists. It’s a utopian philosophy and things like UHC and unions have nothing to do with socialism because they believe that once they get what they want, every other problem will be fixed.
So, real socialists should be trying to do what you’re doing. It’s actually pretty funny because they are so proud of things that were created to stop them achieving their goals.
I’m voting for Gary Johnson (unless Ron Paul can pull out some kind of brokered win) for the same reason as krulac.
Romney is not an option for me because he will spend just as much as Obama. (I don’t like his social views either but they are secondary, both because of the immediate economic danger and because the social conservative agenda has already lost beyond hope of resurrection, and no President can change that.)
Which is exactly what Obama did with the auto-bailouts. The prime bond-holders on GM and Chrysler (the rich guys) – who should have been first in line for compensation during the bankruptcies – were put at the end of the line while the union (the workers) were not only put at the head of the line for debt recoupment but also given large stakes in the “bailed out” auto companies.
Here’s how that worked out in GM …
Prior to the bailout – the UAW “owned” 20 billion in health benefits that GM owed. The bond holders held 27 billion in bonds. As you can see, the bond holders had more “skin” in the GM game – to the tune of 7 billion more than the UAW.
But the UAW came out of this holding a 2.5 billion trust for health benefits; 6.5 billion in 9% preferred stock; and given 17.5% of the equity of the new GM. They also got the right to select one independent director (thereby “owning” the means of production).
The bondholders got … 10% of the equity of the new GM.
That’s the plan Obama approved – and he also fired the CEO of GM – an unconstitutional act in itself, and you can bet the new guy was approved by the union bosses.
I don’t know where you get the idea that Socialists are anti-government. They are only “friendly” with anarchists because they’re both “anti-rich”. In fact, I don’t even think most “anarchists” are actually anarchists. They seem to want be left alone personally by govenment but have no problem using it as a punitive tool to be used on others that they don’t like. Socialism is nothing more than “redistributionism” and you can’t do that without government using the threat of force to take from some to give to others.
I don’t like Romney because …
1. He’s an unprincipled shill who will say anything to get elected.
2. His “capitalist” credentials are weak. Bain was NOT a company that built tangible products from nothing – like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Sam Walton did. I’m a capitalist – but I think the weakest “game” in our business are the “vulture capitalists” – which is what Romney was. Nothing against them – but I don’t think his experience is good for the White House.
3. He doesn’t have the balls to fix what’s wrong – he (like Bush before him) can’t handle the backlash from the Socialists in this nation and so he’ll only work around the “fringes” of the problem – we’re too far gone for that. May as well just let Obama pilot this plane into the ground and give him the blame for it.
4. Romney is a closet Socialist also and RomneyCare is evidence enough of that.
As far as Republicans who “pretend” to be Libertarian – yes they are out there. These are people who still believe in prohibitive laws for “thee” but not for “me”. You can find them all over in the Tea Party – which I used to be a member of. Those people haven’t come to the realization yet that “prohibition” is a sword that has no consistent owner. At one moment – they own it and are using it against “others”. At the next moment – the sword is owned by “others” using it against them.
Libertarians want to DESTROY the sword so it can be used against no one.
Actually, as Comixchick rightfully pointed out a few weeks ago, there are no real socialists in American politics. There are, however, plenty of politicians who would give syndicates (such as unions) power in the government. Technically, our government moved from a republic to a syndocracy (government in which officials are selected by special-interest groups ranging from political parties to “-isms” to corporations) in the 1970s, and by the 1990s it had become fascist (intermarriage of government and big business). It’s not unusual for fascist governments to include some socialist notions in their platform; “Nazi” is short for “National Socialist”, after all.
In the USA, both sides, Republicans and Democrats have no real answers to the economic issues, because they are devoted to maintaining the system at all costs. They are merely rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship to make the voters feel better.
The USA hasn’t had a real economy in years- Moving digits around on a computer screen doesn’t really generate wealth, nor does the gambling that goes on on Wall Street. All is does is guarantee occasional crashes.
Our entire economy is structured wrong, with the people who actually generate the wealth, those who actually invent, make or do something seeing little of the profits, which are mostly sucked up by the parasitic 1%. If you don’t control your economic life, then you don’t control the rest of it. That’s one of the things I liked best about sex work.
The US government has, and continues to ignore that the basis of our modern economy, oil, is going to be in shorter supply, and more expensive, and that vast spending will be required to rebuild our nation in the face of climate change, and we’ve done nothing about that.
In addition, the USA and the former USSR make the same economic mistake, everything directed from the top down, for a wealthy and powerful group. Call them capitalists or commissars, they are the same.
Right now, businesses in the USA aren’t hiring because they know full well there’s weak demand. There’s weak demand because the majority, the working people have little money or feel insecure in their jobs. It’s a viscous circle.
Only a real, and serious change to how our economy is structured will make any improvements, but the 1% parasites won’t allow that.
Maggie,
A gift for you. I guess it was only a matter of time.
Either Nasrin is a dupe (which I suspect) or is deliberately, willfully thick.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2012/06/11/stelas-story/
Nasrin doesn’t know the MEANING of free thought; I honestly have no idea why they gave her a blog there. Maybe she’s some kind of token Ytue Believer?
I left a comment – it’s awaiting moderation! LOL
She needs to have her membership in Free Thought questioned. There’s no free thought in her zone.
I can’t say for others, but- Back when I was working:
Porn: Once regular testing was instituted, I got monthly tests for hiv, and other diseases. Now granted, when I worked in Europe they weren’t doing that at the time, but in the US they did. I don’t know if they are now in Europe.
Hooking: I had a cooperative doctor, it took some effort to find one, but I got monthly checks and regular tests. It cost a lot, out of my own pocket, but I felt it worthwhile.
Maybe if the government is so concerned about hookers spreading disease, there ought to be a national health care scheme?
There already is one in Australia, but prohibitionists will be prohibitionists.
Only moreso… Once everyone is paying for everyone’s medical care (which is what national healthcare is), it gives everyone even more of an excuse to dictate what you can and cannot do with your body; especially the prohibitionists, since they’ll be more inclined to use it. (See also New York, where it’s already happening with salt, soda, fat, etc. being banned or restricted because of “public health” concerns.)
But New York City doesn’t have socialized health care, while The Netherlands does and pretty much everything is legal there.
True, but the Dutch have never been much for prohibition, whereas Americans are in love with it.
It’s not just prohibition – it’s the plethora of tools that the government has at it’s disposal to herd people like cattle into behaviors IT considers acceptable …
* PROHIBITIONS on things like “Super-size” portions of fast foods and beverages (see NYC)
* LIMITATIONS on where you can buy things and where they can be served – like in Norway and it’s ridiculous alcohol laws.
* TAX SCHEMES to dissuade consumers from buying the products / food they wish – such as the “fat tax” in Denmark which actually is PENALIZING Danes for eating healthy – newsflash, it’s red meat, fish and animal fats that the human genome “evolved” to subsist on – and we did it for 20,000 years of the Paleolithic era – how long have we had agricultural technology? Oh that’s right – only in the last 10,000 years.
Those drunken lads are always such a bother aren’t they?
No mention of the drunken girls that party/sleep with them – as always.
What is really bizarre is that some drunk amateurs appear to believe that alcohol will protect them from disease and pregnancy… “If I can’t remember it, it didn’t happen”.
Ah, yes, the Immunity Syndrome.
“I have no choice but to assume they didn’t find the truth because they didn’t want to, which is a serious moral and ethical lapse.”
I’m certain you are correct- at least as far as the BBC is concerned. Most (if not all) of those who work there appear to have a mindset that doesn’t tolerate views that conflict with the ones they hold since – acording to their thinking -anyone who puts forward a different point of view must be mad, bad or ignorant and therefore can be safely ignored.
BBC sucking Uncle Sam’s cock…nothing new there.
Either they are going to prostitutes or prostitutes are going to them, but both are legitimate concerns! Reminds me of “The Blues Brothers” where the lady says “we have both kinds of music: Country and Western.”
femen made international news when they caused damage to the cup,that was out in the open for people to take photos with,because of the rise in sex tourism the event would cause.they got arrested.i honestly think that theese girls are annoying as fuck.even if the event causes sex tourism,why shouldnt the girls be able to make money,since the opportunity arises?it is true that many soccer fans want to have sex when they visit another country for the game,they are on holidays and want to have fun,the same is true for anyone on vacation,they are relaxed and they let loose.i have had one night stands with some tourists who visit the greek islands and with a barcelona fan when i visited the wembley stadium in london for the champions league soccer cup. if it brings more money for the sex workers,if they are able to charge higher prices,because of this,then why start a witch hunt in hotels and night clubs that only makes the girls life more difficult?it will cause them to hide even more,it will be miserable,it will be humiliating.fucking idiots.
“Lost tribe of harlots”. I’m still laughing at that one!
I extend the metaphor in my column for two weeks from today. 🙂
About tax breaks improving employment:
OK, time for a hypothetical. I own a business. I employ one hundred people, and they manufacture and sell ten thousand widgets a month. I’m not Bill Gates by any stretch of the imagination, but I am making a nice profit.
Why do they manufacture ten thousand widgets a month? Why not nine thousand, or sixteen thousand, or some other number? The answer is: because ten thousand a month is as many widgets as the public is willing to buy. If the public only wanted nine thousand a month, do you think I’d waste the money making ten thousand?
Why do I employ one hundred people? The answer is: because I haven’t figured out how to do it with ninety-nine. Do you think I’m going to pay wages and benefits for more workers than I need? That’s a waste of money.
So now I get a big, beautiful tax cut. Thank you. That’ll look very nice in my bank account.
What, you thought I was going to hire more workers with it? Why the hell would I do that? Giving me a tax cut doesn’t cause the general public to buy more widgets, and I already have enough workers to manufacture and sell all the widgets the public will buy. Just because I have more money doesn’t mean I want to throw it away making more widgets than I can sell. Cut my taxes to zero; I’ll love it. But I’m not going to throw it away making more widgets than the public will buy.
Ah, but surely if the government raises my taxes, I’ll have to lay off some of my employees, no? Well, no. Not unless they raise my taxes a whole, whole lot. Not unless they raise them so much I can’t make payroll any more. After all, if I lay off workers, I can’t make ten thousand widgets a month any more, which means I can’t SELL ten thousand widgets a month any more, and that means I’m losing sales revenue ON TOP OF what I’m losing in higher taxes. Now, those higher taxes piss me off, but I’m not going to respond by throwing away sales revenues. If I were that sorry a businessman, I wouldn’t have much money TO tax.
The number of people I hire isn’t determined by my tax rate. The number of people I hire is determined by how many people it takes to get the job done.
And yes, I wish newspapers and broadcasters would give up the Lost Tribe of Harlots (although it would make a FANTASTIC hentai series!).
Unfortunately, your analysis has some rather serious flaws; the largest of which is that it seems to be very static in nature. It seems to assume that the tax rate only affects you and your decisions; not those of your market.
1. You might be producing 10k widgets now, but a tax cut could make demand go up because your customers’ money, previously going to taxes, is now available for buying widgets. Likewise, if taxes go up, your customers may be less able to afford your widgets.
2. In addition to #1, lowering the taxes your business pays means you’re more able to lower your products’ prices, making you more competitive (especially if your competition is in a different tax zone, like another state or country).
3. Many costs of business come from taxed earnings; particularly R&D. Lowering your taxes lets you invest more into finding the next big advance in widgetdom.
4. Even if your particular business isn’t affected one way or the other, yours is not the only business in existence. You might have found the magic spot on the supply/demand curve to supply exactly as many widgets as the market demands, but you’d be one of the few. There are many businesses out there (particularly emerging businesses, which tend to bring with them new products and advances) who can’t meet the demand but can’t expand because of the tax burden. (And remember, we’re not just talking corporate taxes; we’re talking all taxes… Income, FICA, etc.)
5. Our current tax code is horrendously complicated; even if the overall rate stayed the same, simplifying the calculations and accounting required would free up hundreds of billions of dollars annually in compliance costs; money that is currently being spent to fill out papers that no one really cares about once the year’s done could be put to more productive uses. (And that’s not even considering how many businesses never start, or never start down a new path, because they simply can’t figure out what the tax implications of their decisions are.)
[…] depend on government sufferance for their funds, it is completely unsurprising that they have pandered shamelessly to the “sex trafficking” narrative both the UK and US governments have used to excuse […]