Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. – Matthew 23:27-28
Though most of the news articles I encounter can be handled in a link and a few words in a “That Was the Week That Was” column, some are so rich in content and implication that they demand an entire post to themselves. This recent item from the Arizona Republic was clearly motivated by a desire to smear its competitor, the Village Voice-owned Phoenix New Times, but that’s just the beginning of the issues here; keep in mind that Phoenix is not only home to the Republic and Village Voice Media, but also to the most corrupt and tyrannical sheriff in America, Joe Arpaio, and that the cops quoted in this story (who claim to be so very concerned with the “victimization” of women) work for a department which routinely ignored rape and child molestation cases (at least 432 of them in all). One year ago today I advised the attorneys general of 44 states (including Arizona) to get the beams out of their own eyes before attempting to get the mote out of Backpage’s; today I have similar advice for the scribes of the Republic and the Pharisees infesting both the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Arizona State University:
Nearly 80 percent of the ads posted on the adult-services section of the classified website Backpage.com are for prostitutes, according to an Arizona State University research project…the research project drew on the expertise of law-enforcement officers to identify prostitution ads based on certain commonly used words and phrases and to identify minors based on factors including the girls’ development…offering the first detailed glimpse at content on the classified site that has spawned critics around the country who accuse the site’s parent company, Village Voice Media, of Phoenix, of profiting off prostitution ads and exploiting women and young girls…
As soon as you stop laughing at the moronic conceit that cops who are supposedly “expert” in sniffing out hooker ads could only find 80% of them in a section made up of nothing else, you may want to acquaint yourself with my essay on a similar “study” from the commercial con artists at the Schapiro Group. Nutshell version: how could the “researchers” be sure the pictures were even of the advertiser, much less current, much less underage? This is nothing but wild guessing combined with wishful thinking and the usual cop pretense at “professionalism”. Oh, and speaking of professionalism:
…The researchers reported 88 girls to Phoenix police who they believed to be under the age of 18. Phoenix police said they rescued three of the girls though at least one has since been featured on the site…
Those of you who are unfamiliar with the ethics of social studies may not see the problem here: reporting experimental subjects to the police is such a gross ethical violation it could potentially result in serious consequences for the offending academics if they actually belonged to a professional organization or were subject to a proper ethics board. Obviously they must not be, which in turn raises questions about their methodology and procedures.
Law-enforcement officers from around the country routinely monitor the site to gather information about the prostitutes who advertise there, along with their pimps and customers…
Because everyone knows that all whores have pimps, and we write about them (and our customers) right there in our ads for all to see.
…The ASU research reinforced the Phoenix vice squad’s belief that the Valley is a hub for prostitution, whether the women and girls are full-time Arizona residents or operating on a circuit rotating among cities in the Southwest…
News flash: All cities are “hubs” for prostitution for the same reason they’re “hubs” for every kind of business, namely higher customer concentration. Does the Phoenix vice squad think newspaper readers are so stupid they can’t comprehend that, or is it just that they’re that stupid?
“It illustrates the scope of the problem here in Phoenix,” said Lt. Jim Gallagher, who oversees a unit that attempts to treat prostitutes as trafficking victims while targeting
the men and women who control them. “It confirmed a lot of what we already knew…”
Because if the only tool you have is a hammer…
…Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, the ASU professor in the School of Social Work who spearheaded the study, said she wants to expand the research to other cities in the hopes of better understanding the role of Internet advertising in prostitution and human trafficking.
Of course, she could talk to sex workers about it, but that A) would require de-conflating prostitution and “trafficking”, and B) wouldn’t be nearly as lucrative.
…The ASU researchers, who received some training from Phoenix police on how to identify minors and what code words and acronyms might signal prostitution ads, said none of the minors they flagged were spotted by Backpage…
This is the most outrageous absurdity in the entire absurd article. Because they were “trained” by the crack experts in the Phoenix police department who don’t even know that Backpage girls often use other people’s pictures, clearly they MUST be 100% accurate in magically discerning which girls are underage just by looking at their ads, and therefore Backpage’s methods must be ineffectual. Seriously, what are these “researchers” smoking? And does this reporter possess even the most rudimentary critical thinking skills? Furthermore, did no editor stop to consider that since the owners of Village Voice Media are suing the sheriff’s office for conspiracy, false arrest and gross civil rights violations, that maybe employees of that department might be just a teensy bit biased against them? Submitted for your approval: in a fully-developed fascist state it isn’t necessary for the government to censor the media or ensure academic cooperation via threats of repression, because those institutions are more than willing to violate every standard of professional ethics in their eagerness to assist in the dissemination of propaganda.
Some of you Christians are just too much. How can you expect to fight bias against sex workers when your own prejudices are so obvious.
Excuse me, but who the hell is this directed toward? I’m not a Christian and I am a sex worker, and nobody else has commented yet. Are you attacking some imaginary opponent, or do you find it so difficult to read English that you simply make asinine assumptions based on a title? Or perhaps you suffer from the bizarre belief that quoting scripture makes one a Christian, in which case I reckon quoting Shakespeare (as I often do) must make me English.
Please peddle your prejudice elsewhere; it isn’t welcome here.
Then what is your problem with the Pharosees? They were reformers in their day. The most renowned of them, Hillel, owed his influence to the fact that he listened before he made a legal ruling. If the prohibitionists would listen to sex workers and their clients before they made up their minds they might see the value contributed to society.
Jesus is fine for asperational personal ethics. But you can hardly base a legal code on “Be ye therefor perfect…”
Do you live in some sort of cultural vacuum? You are aware of the common meaning of the word “pharisee” in modern English, yes? Here, I’ll help you (see #2):
Phar·i·see [far-uh-see] noun
1. a member of a Jewish sect that flourished during the 1st century b.c. and 1st century a.d. and that differed from the Sadducees chiefly in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions, and belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah.
2. ( lowercase ) a sanctimonious, self-righteous, or hypocritical person.
However, it’s no wonder you’re offended, since you’re EXACTLY the sort of person Jesus was insulting in that chapter. Consider verse 24: “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” Which is precisely what you are doing in these comments.
Yes, I know the common meaning of the word Pharisee. I also know the common meaning of other words and phrases based on derogatory stereotypes. I don’t find them acceptable either.
Perhaps I overestimated the extent of your learning. The Pharisees were the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism. The stereotypes of the Pharisees have always gone hand in hand with negative characterization of Judaism generally.
It’s clear that you either haven’t read much of my writing or haven’t been paying attention, or else you would know that I find people who are afraid of words to be pathetic. Hint: I frequently refer to myself as a whore, and have strongly criticized politically-correct terms like “homophobia”, “African-American”, etc on a plethora of occasions.
Oh, and for what it’s worth: “Perhaps I overestimated the extent of your learning” wins today’s award for most ludicrous attempt at an insult.
I once posted in an allegedly open political forum that was actually controlled by rabidly liberal types. One challenge to my post resulted in my pointing out that welfare payments and corporate bailouts are morally equivalent.
One of my respondents then declared that I must hate the poor because I mentioned welfare payments before corporate bailouts.
There are just some people that it’s just not worth dealing with….
Oh, I agree; I just find it terribly funny that someone is criticizing my citation of a scriptural passage which actually describes him, and doesn’t seem to recognize it. 😀
So you prefer derogatory language when given a choice.
I don’t think I’m the pathetic one here.
But why does your blog use the politically correct word “courtesan” in its name.
FYI: That was your last comment; I have better things to do than moderate you all day. Your ignorance of why my blog is thus entitled demonstrates you aren’t a regular reader, and your bizarre statement that “courtesan” is PC leads me to believe that you haven’t been paying attention to the “all whores are victims” dogma which has been PC for the past decade.
Goodbye.
Oh my. The butthurt from this guy is amazing.
Yes, I rather think that Silence DoGood* probably makes a habit of holding his own hand as he walks about, an obvious case of the dumb leading the stupid.
*Just in case silencio is trademarked.
Paging Dr. Ferris, we have a policy we need your apologia for….
Here’s a quote from the unesteemed Doctor, though perhaps it would be more appropriate for yesterday’s post.
“We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them…you create a nation of lawbreakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden.”
Maybe I’ll have to go read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand after all.
There are two things I’d say to any new reader of Atlas Shrugge.
Critics have often said that Rand’s characters are caricatures. This is true. Her characters are best understood as embodied principles. So, for example, Rand gives Rearden conflicting sets of principles, one he uses in business and the other he applies to his relationships with people. Part of his “story” is the working out of how the latter will destroy the former, unless it is abandoned.
Although some aspects of the sexual relationships Rand depicts in her novels derive from her philosophy, others are merely expressions of Rand’s psychology. The reader must decide for himself which is which.
80% ?? Hah! I’ll bet the majority of them talk a good game, but there’s no actual sex going on. They may imply it, but when it comes down to actually doing it they like “I never said THAT!”. Then they run off with the money.
America is so dishonest.
Maggie – Joe Arpaio may be corrupt, or he may not be. I don’t have any first hand knowledge. However the New Times article you link to certainly doesn’t provide any evidence that Arpaio is corrupt.
In fact, it provides strong evidence to the contrary. A U.S. Attorney’s Office (which apparently has reason not to like Sheriff Joe very much) conducted a four year grand jury investigation and came up empty. Given how easy it is these days to manufacture a technical violation of the law out of entirely innocent conduct, this suggests to me that Sheriff Joe just might be pure as the driven snow.
None of this, of course, takes away from you main point. It is possible to be entirely honest and still be taken in by dishonest research.
Just the opposite; the fact that they couldn’t come up with anything even though it’s a simple matter to invent stuff demonstrates that they were ordered to find nothing, and that the “investigation” was just political theater.
“Even a modestly competent district attorney can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” Sol Wachtler, former New York State chief judge
🙂
There’s a great deal you can read about Joe Arpaio. Hell, just start at his wikipedia page and that you will give you enough reading material to last a lifetime. You can also search Radley Balko’s blog (theagitator.com). Here’s one of my favorites: chaining up a woman in childbirth (http://www.theagitator.com/2009/11/23/sheriff-joes-new-low/) and trying to take her daughter away over traffic fines and a shoplifting charge.
The thing most people don’t know about grand juries is that the prosecutor is allowed to use hearsay. (In the federal system, though I believe this is true in state systems as well.) The prosecutor can simply read off his one-sided evidence–distorted if necessary–and ask for an indictment.
All that’s perfectly legal. And if that’s not enough to get an indictment, he can simply make up whatever he wants with almost no chance of being caught, since what happens in front of a grand jury is kept secret.
Is there any evidence that the AUSA’s involved in the investigation were ordered to find nothing? I doubt very seriously it happened that way.
I have heard of cases where a U.S. Attorney or a DOJ official issues an inexplicable declination of a high profile defendant. But line AUSA’s being ordered to run a four year investigation but told to be sure not to find anything? Could never happen.
Your faith in the propriety of our legal system is touching, if misplaced.
I detail in my blog how I got convicted of a non-crime. (I’ve posted two of the four planned posts on the topic.) It took the (at least tacit) cooperation of the federal defender, prosecutor, and judges all the way up to the Supreme Court to get my conviction and to prevent me from getting the writ of habeas corpus to which I was entitled.
America has a legal system. So also did the Soviet Union. I see no meaningful difference between the two legal systems. Justice requires more than pious words and an outward following of the forms.
Faith? My statement is based on over a quarter century in the legal system, working on both sides of the “v”.
And I don’t necessarily have “faith” in the outcomes of the legal system. I have seen judges, prosecutors and juries do incredibly boneheaded things. I have also seen prosecutors do less than honest things.
I am merely saying that, in my experience, it would not have happened like you describe. I could believe a politically motivated declination after a robust investigation (although I find this hard to believe given that the DOJ and the Sheriff are on opposite sides of the political wires). I do not believe it possible that line AUSA were expressly told to go out and conduct a sham grand jury investigation.
If you’ve worked on the government’s side of the justice system, your bare word is worthless. Unless you have some way to back up what you say with objective evidence, you might as well save your breath.
Wow. Your opinion of my credibility would really sting if I gave a rat’s ass what you think, whoever the hell you are.
It’s not supposed to sting. It’s not even a comment on you personally. However, the fact is that almost everyone here has seen overwhelming evidence of the government’s, and especially the justice department’s, perfidy.
Your mere word, especially since you cannot claim to be a disinterested party, has absolutely no persuasive value.
You really shouldn’t need to be told that….
Right. And Eric Holder would never have dismissed the charges against four people already convicted by a jury of voter intimidation just because they were black and were his President’s supporters, right?
Anyone who believes there’s anything the Obama White House is incapable of is delusional. Expect a “night of the long knives” (on Obama’s behalf) comparable to the one in 1934 as soon as the November election is over, whether or not he wins reelection.
All right! A prediction near enough in the future that we can check it before everybody forgets it was made. Unlike predictions of what will happen within sixty years, when many of us won’t even be alive to check up on the reality v prediction.
Note: said event did not occur, and we’re almost to March.
Prediction failed!
Yeah, “as soon as the November election is over” can only be so long.
It’s now the July following the November election. Exactly how long is “soon” again?
Careful, Maggie. Joe Arpaio is a great “hero” to the Tea Partiers. As long as he targets illegals, they overlook anything else he might do.
The Tea Party people are as clueless as the Occupy people; they both have a tremendous amount of rage which if harnessed could be a great force for reform, but they direct it at false targets and paper tigers and embrace criminal fascists as their saviors.
So who are the real targets that the Tea Party and Occupiers should be going after?
As HAL points out below, the same enemy: the crony capitalists, the powerful special interest groups such as public employee unions, and the politicians who have gotten in bed with them (i.e. all of them).
Arpaio is the kind of person the Tea Party should be chasing through the streets. Zero respect for the Constitution, nepotism, abuse of power. He’s everything they claim to oppose. Occupy too.
I have some sympathy for both movements — much more for the Tea Party. But they need to realize they are fighting a common enemy.
So the study’s whole basis is propped up by the moronic belief that everything they read on the Internet is true. For me, the big problem statement in the entire article is this one:
“It confirmed a lot of what we already knew…”
An “independent” study using the exact same bullshit tactics that law enforcement uses to magically weed out underage prostitutes on an Internet message board and they get results that confirm law enforcement’s delusion? That is truly shocking.
Maggie wrote:
This is the most outrageous absurdity in the entire absurd article. Because they were “trained” by the crack experts in the Phoenix police department who don’t even know that Backpage girls often use other people’s pictures, clearly they MUST be 100% accurate in magically discerning which girls are underage just by looking at their ads, and therefore Backpage’s methods must be ineffectual. Seriously, what are these “researchers” smoking?
I think they call that foreshadowing. Unless the functional obesity of the police force means that they are mutual experts in a completely different kind of crack.