The thing about Maureen Dowd is that her columns almost always address things that I at least care enough about to think about, which is mainly why she is so adept at stoking the embers of my righteous indignation. And it's not that she's offensive, exactly, it's more her capacity to take issues that I think are serious and distill them down to the most incomprehensibly asinine commentary imaginable. By way of illustration, her closing remark from yesterdays' piece:
Hillary would never have to pretend to be a man to get aides to respect her, proving that she has moved past gender in a way Ferraro never did.*
Which makes me feel like...
BTW, Ms. Dowd gets extra cool pts this week for knowing someone who knows something about sex work. JK LOL!!!
Speaking of which I was going to post the Times' two pieces addressing the "issue" of prostitution alongside some snarky comment, but NYT u r so boring to me today why. Why dont u go print a screenshot of an escort service website or something?**
Prostitution, like drug trafficking, is one of those zones where libertarianism bumps up against the realities of human nature.
To a lover of liberty, it's hard to see why a woman shouldn't sell her favors if she wants to. Trouble is, weak or dimwitted women end up in near-slavery to unscrupulous men, and I think there's a legitimate public interest in not letting that happen.
The best private sector solution would be a guild system, like the geishas had in old Japan. There'd be entry standards for the guild. Women would have to pass exams, and have some entertainment skills other than the obvious ones. The guild would police itself, expelling miscreants. Freelancing outside the guild could be under strong social disapproval, even made illegal.
** o wait, u linked to ashley dupre's myspace page??? omg nevermind nyt, yr the best! xoxoxoxo!!1