TAKE TWO. Let me try to explain this again. I was quoting Concerned Women for America. They and other conservative groups have, in recent years, written extensively about why even "perfectly ordinary hookers" should be considered slaves, and they have hailed President Bush for his leadership on this issue. According to Elaine McGinnis of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at CWA:
IT'S ONLY CORRECT IF IT'S TRUE. Well, no, I wasn't really kidding about not seeing why commercial sex adds wrongfulness to allegations of corruption. Stipulating that taking bribes is bad; I don't see why taking bribes in the form of free hookers is worse than taking bribes in the form of money. Nor do I quite understand what Garance is saying about prostitution being "a form of slavery." There definitely is some sex slavery going on in the world.
WHERE'S THE BEEF? There is a lot of good material in The New Republic's Darfur package and I don't want to sound churlish. But one of Mark's points deserves some emphasizing. In eight articles dedicated to the subject and collectively dedicated to building the case for armed American action in Darfur, not one of them outlines, straightforwardly and at longer length than one or two sentences, an actual plan (or possible plans) for an American armed intervention in the Sudan that the magazine would endorse. I looked twice and couldn't find such a proposal.
THE CORRECT PHRASE IS SEXUAL SLAVERY. There�s lots of talk on the liberal blogs about Porter Goss's sudden resignation as director of the CIA and whether it has anything to due with the burgeoning investigation into the prostitution/congressional corruption/homeland security contracting scandal centered around Brent Wilkes and deposed Congressman Duke Cunningham. ThinkProgress, as usual, has rounded up the relevant details and links.
HOOKERGATE'S FIRST VICTIM! I have absolutely no evidence to support this, other than the fact that it involves the CIA, but since everyone else is speculating that Porter Goss's resignation has something to do with the Wade/Wilkes/Cunningham/Foggo/limos/hookers nexus, why shouldn't I join the party, too?
But instead of all this unwarranted speculation, how about tossing out a downright insane idea: Maybe George W. Bush is just clearing the decks for a major address next week in which he'll come clean about the WMD issue. Ah, Friday fun.
MEDIA WARRIORS.The New York Observer media blog The Transom issues a declaration of war against Salon. Much hilarity sure to ensue. This item explaining the declaration, though, is right on:
DEMS ARE -- GASP! -- STAYING ON OFFENSE. It was refreshing to read the toughly worded statement DSCC chief Chuck Schumer put out today about the AP poll which showed far more Americans want Democrats to run Congress. Said Schumer:
MORE TNR DARFUR, FEWER KUDOS. One of my favorite public intellectuals, Samantha Power, also pens an excellent essay which raises a crucial point that will likely make some of the Iraq war hawks who roam the halls of TNR rather uncomfortable.
KUDOS TO KATZ.Marisa Katz�s contribution to The New Republic�s Darfur issue stands out as the issue's must-read piece. She writes an update of a trend in the Bush administration�s Sudan policy that I identified in the Prospect a year ago. Back then, the administration was hastily working to ensure that the Comprehensive Peace Accord (between the North and South) was implemented. So as not to upset these negotiations, the administration appeased Khartoum in a policy that bore the hallmarks of creeping rapprochement with the regime.
