Showing posts with label Secret Fear Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Secret Fear Theory. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Susie Bright Interviews the D.C. Madam

Thanks to Radley Balko for linking to this fascinating interview with the alleged D.C. Madam, Deborah Palfrey. She talks a bit about the scope of the investigation which brought her down, and she seems a bit paranoid. But I have to say I wonder why the feds spent so much money on this particular investigation. Even if you think that prostitution ought to be illegal, this sort of use of law-enforcement resources is questionable at best. Opportunistic arrest is one thing, but a whole long-running investigation. Why?

The interview is well worth reading, but I found a few tidbits particularly worthy of note. One, even though she doesn't use these words, Susie Bright echoes my own Secret Fear Theory:

I mean, when I think about... It's almost like everything these people rail against becomes the very thing that they're into. It's almost as if they're revealing themselves by their preaching. Whatever they're screaming about...


Precisely. People's politics reflect what they fear in themselves.

Second, Palfrey promises EVEN MORE REVELATIONS. And she doesn't feel bad about it.

I don't wish to ruin anyone's life. However, I do share the same mindset as Larry Flynt: expose the hypocrites. And for those few dozen to a hundred or so that ultimately will be revealed — like David Vitter — I go to sleep very easily at night without any guilty feelings whatsoever about the David Vitters of the world.


Oh, yum. If she follows through, former Bushista Randall Tobias and Senator Vitter won't be the only ones. I can't wait!

Finally, and perhaps worst of all, something I had missed when I previously posted about Senator David Vitter, Palfrey's alleged client. According to Bright, Vitter's nickname among New Orleans Prostitutes was "Vitter the Shitter," because he had a diaper fetish.

Ewwww. I guy who frequents prostitutes can be a charming rouge, and a taste for kinky sex can even add a certain exotic appeal. But diapers! Aaargh, that's just grosss. I don't know how I missed this before -- after all, it was in Wonkette.

Wonkette linked to these advertisements, saying the diaper stuff made them even more "hilarious and disgusting." Well, yes. But I have to say that I feel sorry for Vitter's poor kids, who will undoubtedly find out that Daddy got off being diapered.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

A Senator Sins

Via Ann Althouse, this Washington Post story about the latest victim of the D.C. Madam scandal. It would seem that Senator David Vitter, R-Louisiana, took advantage of the services of her ladies. Well, at least that's what his statement would appear to indicate, in a passage which Professor Althouse also highlighted:

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter, 46, said in a statement, which his spokesman, Joel DiGrado, confirmed to the Associated Press.

"Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling," Vitter continued. "Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

As Professor Althouse says in response:

Oh, well, if God has forgiven him...

Palfrey can't say God has forgiven her and walk free. In fact, Vitter's statement hurts Palfrey because it strongly implies that Palfrey was doing what she's accused of. Vitter's confession -- intended to move us to mercy -- links him to criminal activity, but only she is facing criminal punishment.

Shouldn't the expiation of Vitter's sins wait until he has introduced a bill that would create a federal right to engage in the business of prostitution? It's not a matter to be resolved within the realm of church and family as long as Palfrey is being prosecuted.

Sing it, sister! Vitter is using that God-talk in order to avoid further embarassing revelations. "This is a private matter," he's saying, almost implying that if you don't take him at his word about God's forgiveness, well, you're some sort of heretic. All right, I will credit him with one thing -- although he used a circumlocution, he admitted that he "sinned." Unlike that pathetic weasel Randall Tobias, forced to resign from the State Department, who claimed he used the services for massages. I mean, come on! It's pretty easy to find a reputable massage therapist these days. If you get caught whoring, get caught whoring, get caught whoring. (I suppose it's barely possible that Tobias is telling the truth, but, if so, he is an idiot, paying what has to be a high rate for a substandard massage.)

I don't think that Vitter ought to be able to sweep this aside with the God-and-family bit. Presumably he supports federal laws making it a serious crime to run a prostitution business in the District of Columbia. If this is a matter of public concern -- so much so that capitalist acts between consenting adults should be legally proscribed with all the force and power the state -- then surely it is a matter of public concern that he chose to partake in such services.

If Vitter wants to be left alone, well, then the prosecution of Deborah Jeane Palfray should be ended post haste, and the laws against prostitution ought to be abolished in the District of Columbia. Heck, Palfray is probably the most honost whore in Washington.

And I cannot resist the urge to point out that this rather neatly vindicates my previously-articulated Secret Fear Theory of politics. Vitter is one of these church-and-family Republicans, so it is hardly surprising that he has patronized prostitutes.

UPDATE: Sullivan digs out this 2000 quotation from Mrs. Senator Vitter: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me." Perhaps Senator Vitter has more than just the voters to fear.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

This is Your Brain. This is Your Brain on the War On Drugs

Back at her own blog, Megan McAardle cites an article by John Tierney in the New York Times about the now-ongoing trial of Virginia pain specialist, Doctor William E. Hurwitz. (More can be found here.) Dr. Hurwitz is now on trial for prescribing "too much" pain medication to some of his patients, some of whom either sold the medication on the street or used it recreationally themselves. Megan asks:

I don't even understand how it is possible that, in order to keep some people from ruining their lives with prescription painkillers, we are willing to condemn other people to horrendous suffering. Why have so few other people noticed that this is not merely wrong, but also thoroughly silly?

It's not just silly, Megan, it's murderous. As John Tierney notes, two of Hurwitz's former patients, unable to find doctors who would treat their pain, committed suicide.

That's right. They were in so much pain that killed themselves after Hurwitz shut down his practice. He shut down his practice due to the federal investigation.

The folks who work at the DEA who investigated Hurtwitz manage to feed and clothe themselves, to tie their own shoes and to do the normal things that adults of ordinary intelligence do in their lives. The prosecutors who prosecute him may not have been at the top of their class, but they graduated from law school. Anybody who didn't ride the short bus to school ought to be able to tell that prosecuting Hurwitz is a thoroughly idiotic thing to do.

So why, Megan asks, do we do it?

Well, the "war on drugs" gets its emotional oomph because certain substances are demonized. They aren't just bad in the ordinary sense that using them to excess will result in undesirable consequences. No, they become a symbol, a manifestation of Evil Incarnate. And in order to stop their abuse, we must have a "WAR" on drugs. The folks who become involved in that enterprise become emotionally attached to it. They're not just enforcing a law; they're purging the world of Evil.

People who buy into the notion that Drugs Are Evil lose their sense of balance and proportion. Ideas about costs and benefits just don't apply, because the War on Drugs is about Virtue, about Right and Wrong. The very real costs associated with it just don't get counted. A zealot never thinks about costs and benefits, only The Cause. The War on Drugs is itself a mind-altering substance.

This all goes back to the Secret Fear theory. Above all else, the Drug Warriors fear the notion of addiction -- the idea that an Evil Substance could totally take over a person's life, become the be-all and end-all. The drug warrior fears losing rationality and control. Deep down, the Drug Warriors are afraid it could happen to them, they could become "addicted." They could be taken over by an Evil Drug.

And so they become addicted, but not in the way they fear. Addicted to control. Addicted to rules. Addicted to a constant "get tough," "get tougher," get toughest" mentality. Never mind that tougher enforcement has never worked -- they're addicted to the War on Drugs. It's what gives their lives meaning and purpose.

The fact is that many drugs -- and opiods certainly fall into this category -- are "dual use." That is, they can be used recreationally, to get high, or medically, to alleviate pain. A policy of banning recreational drug use (except for alcohol and tobacco and caffeine) therefore inevitably entails a policy of restricting dual-use drugs. If we allowed unrestricted access to opiods while continuing to ban recreational drugs like pot and heroin and cocaine, people would just substitute the opiods.

Such restrictions require that we distinguish between true medical users -- people in pain -- and people who just want to get high. Here's the rub: we don't have a painometer to see who is lying about being in pain. We have to take people's word. Inevitably, some people will lie. And they will either sell the drugs illicitly or use them recreationally. Therefore, an inevitable consequence of the War on Drugs is some social mechanism for determining who is really in pain, and who's faking it.

In his article, John Tierney talks about Dr. Robin Hamill-Ruth, one of the prosecution's paid witnesses in the Hurwitz case. He makes her look like a fool. One of her patients was a woman who had suffered really bad migraines -- so bad they put her completely out of action. I mean, bad. Really bad -- so bad she once got taken away in handcuffs because she was suicidal. This woman had actually gone to doctor Hurwitz and gotten adequate treatment, treatment that included opoids. But she couldn't do that any more, since Hurwitz's practice had been shut down. So she went to the government's "expert," Dr. Robin Hamill-Ruth. Dr. Robin Hamill-Ruth's clinic wouldn't give the poor woman medication that would, you know, help her -- you see the philosophy of Dr. Robin Hamill-Ruth's clinic "includes avoidance of all opioids in chronic headache management." So what did Dr. Robin Hamill-Ruth give to the woman who suffered chronic and debilitating migraine headaches? She gave her an anxiety medication called BuSpar. And the side effects from BuSpar include -- headaches.

Now, when I read about something like that, I have an urge to start screaming obscenities, but once I calm down, I realize that there's a certain logic at work here. We've already established that a policy of banning recreational drug use (except for alcohol and tobacco and caffeine) inevitably entails a policy of restricting dual-use drugs. We know that some people will lie -- and a headache is the easiest thing in the world to fake, for anybody with even a dollop of thespian talent. We don't have the painometer.

Perfect isn't an option. Errors will occur. We can make the error giving recreational drug users or illicit drug sellers an opening to get opiods. Or we can make some people suffer, in some cases to the point of suicide in order to stop a few recreational drug users or dealers from getting their hands on percocet or vicoden. Now, to anybody with even a dollop of reason, compassion, humanity, or empathy, it is an obvious choice: who the fuck cares if a few prescription meds get diverted for recrational use? Give people the pain relief they need.

But to the Drug Warrior, Drugs are Evil, and if a few people have to suffer, well so be it. If they end up committing suicide, too bad. Acceptable losses in the War on Drugs.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Secret Fear Theory of Politics

Andrew Sullivan points to the irony in the fact that the three leading Democratic candidates for President are all good, faithful exemplars of family values (even Hilary!, who stayed married to Bill despite his serial philandering), while the Republican field is dominated by candidates who have had sordid affairs, multiple marriages, and various other indiscretions.

It may well be ironic, but in fact it actually supports the "secret fear" theory of political ideology. To wit: people want the political system to deal with the ills that they secretly fear themselves. And so, for example, the moral majority types who rail against porn and sexual license are worried that they couldn't keep it zipped absent state intervention. The wealth-redistributionist liberals are worried they'd hoard it all given a chance. And given Edwards' ginormous mansion and Al Gore's profligate energy consumption and dirty zinc mine, is this so implausible? And don't forget our old buddy Ted Haggard -- railing against homosexuals while he himself is on the down-low.

What does that say about me? Well, I'm a libertarian, of sorts, so you'd better not elect me to anything. Or else it's "to the Gulag with you!"