16 thoughts on “Nothing is as Reliably Distracting as Sex.

  1. Jim Leinfelder says:

    I’m still unclear about what precisely this guy’s accused of doing to/with these two women. But it smacks of my early suspicions about the FBI getting into the john sweep business with Spitzer.

    1. Well, your suspicions about Spitzer were well founded, and the pattern here is nearly identical. How any reporter can look at this and swallow denials of “political pressure” is beyond me. But then the press mass isn’t exactly showing comaraderie for a fellow trafficker in vital information, are they?

      1. 108 says:

        I’m not snarkin’. Make me understand this isn’t a figment of your imagination.

        I’m under the impression Spitzer made himself aware to law enforcement by virtue of large payments routed through various banks. Now mind you, Spitzer never got prosecuted for a darn thing, but what was it law enforcement was to do? Nothing? It matters very little who had what motives… He was revealed, people knew, it was going to be made public one way or another. How in the hell is his downfall the result of a conspiracy, much less a right wing one?

        I can pull the relevant NYT link from 2008. So, the NYT was used? What? Who’s using them now with Assange?

      2. PM says:

        the conspiracy was to get his “mistakes” (peccadillos?perversions? passtimes?) exposed, made public. The “mistakes” were his, as he has acknowledged, and if they had not existed, no conspiracy would (should?) have been successful. and, of course, his downfall might well have happened without said conspiracy. But that does not mean that there was no conspiracy.

      3. 108: The fact that Spitzer was NOT prosecuted directly pretty well answers your question. The force of legal weight brought against the couple — really the young wife — operating the call girl operation was unprecedented. The frustrating beauty of conspiracy theories and their mirror-image the “no-conspiracy here” theory is that rarely is either ever provable, conclusively. But the prosecution of the call girl operation with so much leaked specificity of never-to-be-prosecuted john, “Client 9” (Spitzer), is … well, “amazing” is a credible description. Simultaneously his Republican replacement as New York AG is cutting off prosecution of major banks (soon to take the whole economy down as a result of precisely the reckless activity Spitzer was suing them for). You can choose to say, “Nothing to see here, folks”, but that kind of circumstantial stuff grabs my attention. More to the point — feed the media a sex angle and watch them ignore the particulars of the far more relevant case.

      4. 108 says:

        I think to be a substantial conspiracy theory it has to meet the test of altering events from what they would have been. Spitzer’s case does not do that.

        The guy’s a complete basket case. Take your pick… he’s got a chip on his shoulder for being born smart rather than good looking…or he’s a 50 yr old guy obsessed with what he thinks the young gals are doing in bed… or, ya know, just a guy with too much money. Whatever. He’s a screwed up, he was bound to self destruct.

        Second, I do beg to differ. Unprecedented? Prosecutors prosecute and investigators investigate. One of the things they’ve displayed demonstrable interest in is prostitution rings. I’d find this more convincing if you could explain the political motivations behind the Nice Guys bust and the Somali bust. Because you seem to be saying prostituion rings are something that are overlooked within the purview of prosecutorial discretion.

        I’m quite sure there was a prosecutor somewhere who said, boy, we can really get this prick now. But as a practical matter it’s a big SFW. You keep using Spitzer as an example, and he’s a very weak example.

  2. john sherman says:

    The NPR story was basically that the problem was in one case a burst condom and in the other an absent one; the women apparently went to the cops to get him tested for HIV. This was not dragging into the alley knife to the throat rape. If the NPR story is correct and reasonably complete, the behavior described would, if were a crime in the U.S., entail making most of the music industry a sequel to Jail House Rock, as well as a good professional athletics.

    1. Assange doesn’t appear to have a lot of friends. This new split-off group, OpenLeaks, has nothing much good to say about him — on a human-to-human level — but how delicious would it be to get a smoking gun cable with the Americans telling the Brits to coerce the Swedes into hyping up the charges? Of course, looking at it another way, they all might be doing him a favor keeping him in a British jail — as opposed to waiting for the Russians to cap him in some stairwell.

    1. Mike Kennedy says:


      Nice article — “honey trap” — what a name for luring slobbering, leering men into giving up secrets or passing on important names or whatever.

      Even in today’s age of information, education and advancement, we are still at the mercy of caveman instincts. We just dress it up and pretend to be more “mature.”

      Hah. I just returned from the gym where I get a kick out of all the men — young and old leering at the ladies. Of course, I only notice it when I’m not doing it myself.

      1. Mike Kennedy says:

        It’s why I asked you months ago where I can get sunglasses like yours — though I suppose it would look strange wearing them in the gym.

  3. Ellen M says:

    PM: I dare not open any link referring to Honey traps.

    Brian: My hero. You get this story in a way far too many do not. This is not going to end well for Assange. Not because he can be prosecuted successfully under the U.S. Espionage Act (DUH! He’s Australian) but because he will, in all likelihood, have a Russian cap him in some stairwell.

    But — and this is my main point — you err in believing we will have (or ever have, for that matter) “a smoking gun” in this case. Instead, now and in the future we will have 10s of thousands – 100s of thousands – of cables, documents, emails, memos, drafts, letters, data files, voicemails. And it’s not going to stop, no matter what they (i.e. The Man) does to Assange.

    Giddyup. The horse is out of the barn.

    1. PM says:

      Yeah, i think you are right, Ellen–the nature of electronic communications means that it is far easier for things to get out, and if it is far easier for things to get out, then they will get out–either thru venality, mistakes, espionage, honey traps (really–look it up–fascinating! almost enough to make one want to be a spy!), whatever.

      Of course, the benefits of electronic communication are simply to great to ignore, and we will all simply have to accept this cost, and factor it into our calculations of what we write and commit to the (electronic) page.

    2. Ellen my dear, (and I assume you’re still looking as fabulous as you did in D.C.), I am very much saying the horse is out of the barn. The WikiLeaks story, no matter if the sex charges render Assange useless in terms of public credibility, has already emboldened associates and copycats. The macro story is that the freedom of the internet is the best tool we have for extracting and disseminating truly vital information about the most … “primal forces” … in our societies. The press, compromised as a consequence of the need to maintain access with those forces, is best suited for stories about characters of shallower influence.

Comments are closed.