Hi everyone, have been out of the area on speaking engagements, but let me offer my two cents on the question from my former law enforcement prospective.

Prostitution - like other “vice crimes” - is a tiered crime, meaning that where you find prostitution you will find other crimes such as drugs, corruption and others.

Most cops I know who have worked the vice details will tell you of the times they collared more than the prostitute during stings and in some cases gained information on other crime related activity from the suspects taken in.

Yet there are issues and problems with enforcement - especially considering the cost of running a vice sting. For instance a department may received ten-thousand dollars to cover man-hours for a two week enforcement to clean up a particular neighborhood. At the end of the operation the “net” may be only ten arrests which may - in the eyes of those who write the checks - to be (sorry) little ‘bang’ for the buck.

Of course we also cannot leave out the “moral factor”, nor ignore the history where such vice played a definitive role in the fall of that particular society such as Rome. Ed’s points of individual worth are important, but we have to understand that the idea of such laws are not of the saving of souls, but of social order and the maintence of society.

In yesterday’s podcast with Captain Ed I mentioned how ironic it is to have pro-Castro propaganda films shown at the Princeton Public Library - which is headed by the head of the American Library Association - on the same week that Gustavo Colas Castillo, the Deputy Director of Independent Libraries of Cuba has been arrested.

In the podcast, Val Prieto and Ed mentioned that journalist Nat Hentoff had turned down an award from the American Library Association. Here is why:

Hentoff has spoken about the ALA earlier this year, in his article, American Library Association shamed

The American Library Association - the largest organization of librarians in the world - continually declares that it fights for everyone’s “Freedom to Read!” and its Library Bill of Rights requires its members to “challenge censorship.” Yet the leadership of the ALA — not the rank and file - insistently refuses to call for the immediate release of the independent librarians in Cuba - designated as “prisoners of conscience” by Amnesty International. They are serving very long prison terms because they do believe in the freedom to read - especially in a dictatorship.Among the many organizations demanding that Fidel Castro and his successors release these courageous Cubans - who have opened their homes and libraries to offer books censored in the Cuban state libraries - are such groups as the library associations of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. All these librarians, finally freed from Communism, agree with their colleagues in the Polish Library Association, who say in their declaration, “The actions of the Cuban authorities relate to the worst traditions of repressing the freedom of thought and expression.”

Also calling for the liberation of Castro’s many prisoners of conscience, including the librarians, are the Organization of American States, Amnesty International and Freedom House.

However, the top officials of the American Library Association - as well as the majority of its Governing Council - speak derisively of these “so-called librarians” in Castro’s gulags.

It’s true that these prisoners, many brutalized and in failing health, in their cells, don’t have master’s degrees in Library Science; but as poet-novelist-educator Andrei Codrescu told last year’s ALA Midwinter Conference: “These people have been imprisoned for BEING librarians!” Why dismiss them “as ’so-called librarians’ when clearly there is no one (in that dictatorship) to certify them.”

So bizarre is the ALA leadership, along with a cadre of Castro admirers on the Governing Council - in its abandonment of their fellow librarians - it refuses to post on its “Book Burning in the 21st Century” Web site the extensive, documented court transcripts of the “trials” that sent the librarians to prison. Those judges ordered the “incineration” of the prisoners’ libraries, including works by Martin Luther King Jr. and George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.”

But these sentencing documents are verified on the Web sites of Amnesty International, the organization of American States, and Florida State University’s Center for the Advancement of Human Rights. Officials of the ALA - conjuring up a fake conspiracy by the Bush administration to overthrow Castro by using the independent librarians - disdain this verification of the book burnings. They insist, for example, that the Florida State University Web site is funded by grants from the U.S. government.

Yet, that Rule of Law and Cuba [link added] Web site project doesn’t get a dime from the U.S. government. Says director Mark Schlakman: “We place a premium on our independence.”

Read the rest.

But back to the Princeton Human Rights Film Festival hosted by the Princeton Public Library: The same people who praise Castro’s medics as “doctors” and play movies in their favor are the same people who refuse to support people who risk their lives by distributing books in Cuba.

Shameful, indeed.

Cross-posted at Fausta’s blog

Hello to all my fellow conservatives! What exciting times we are living in as Heading Right brings together the conservative radio blogoshpere in the run up to Election 2008. Political Vindication Radio is new to the family, and we couldn’t be more honored to be here. I’d like to thank Ed Morrissey for inviting Political Vindication to join this all-star cast, and commend him on all the work he’s put in to make it happen!

My name is Frank, and my co - host and blog partner is Shane; we are the founders of PoliticalVindication.com and hosts of P.V. Radio!, an internet radio show we started back on Blogtalkradio in January of 2007. It’s been a great ride thus far, and we’ve had the pleasure of meeting some of the most passionate bloggers on the internet. Our hope is that we’ll continue to meet and make friends with conservatives throughout this great nation, and one day, through our blog and the advent of Blogtalkradio - make the case that freedom is worth fighting for.

Special Guest tonight on P.V.Radio:

Tonight at 7PM Pacific Standard Time, we at P.V. Radio will have the great pleasure of interviewing the managing editor of OlbermannWatch.com, Robert Cox. That’s Right, we’ll have a little fun at the expense of one of cable television’s most annoying (and dishonest) figures! It should be a blast and we’d love anyone who wants to join in on the conversation to call (656) 652-4598.

Good arguments from both sides here, but I’m not buying the “victimless crime” angle nor am I enamored with Ed’s passionate defense of individual worth, although from the standpoint of logic, I would have to give Mr. Morrissey the nod.

Libertarians have a blind spot when it comes to extrapolating human behavior beyond the immediate actions of the individual. This serves well when dealing with basic freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc. But by not looking beyond so-called “victimless” crimes and actually seeing the devastation wrought by drugs on families or the pain caused by husbands straying or prostitutes degrading themselves, Libertarians can reduce all human interaction to either individual choice or the choice made by two or more individuals in compact. Yes a single, unattached man isn’t hurting anyone by going to a prostitute nor is a single drug addict with no children. But is that how you promulgate law? I think not.

And Ed’s human worth argument has a few holes too. People may not be “commodities” but we all have jobs where we are paid money for the skills we possess. Is there really a difference between being a good programmer and a talented prostitute? Each is paid according to their “worth” or whatever the market will bear. I agree with Ed that you can’t qualify sex and put a price on it nor can you do the same with a woman’s body part. But stripped to its essentials, we are either all of us whores for taking money for something we do well or whores actually have less worth than the rest of us.

I would be more open to an argument that took into account the fact that prostitution as a practical matter causes more problems for society than can be justified by appeals to “individual liberty.” The same can be said for drugs and even alcohol although practicality precludes banning booze. Too many commercial interests. And far too many imbibers (4 times the number of people who do illegal drugs). That doesn’t mean we should all jump on the “War on Drugs” bandwagon anymore than we should hop on board the anti-prostitution express. It just means that there is a set of human behaviors that places burdens on society and should be discouraged. Sending people to jail for having a small amount of drugs for personal use or seizing their property because a roach was found in a car’s ashtray is silly. But so is making it legal to threaten your own health and the well being of your family by ingesting drugs. Addiction is a personal problem - until the state has to pay for taking care of your family and you as a result of your “individual choice.”

And with prostitution, the self worth of the man or woman engaging in what is essentially an economic activity should take second place to the practical matter that even with a regulated sex industry, there is the spread of disease as well as violence - both of which place undue burdens on society. It’s not how much of a burden but rather the fact that it is an unnecessary one. For the same reason we oppose spending money on unwarranted public works projects and the like, we should oppose prostitution.