I was surprised, though, that they published the question "What’s the biggest misconception about the business?", to which McLennan responded:
I don’t want to make it seem more glamorous than it is. I don’t want to candy-coat it, because there certainly is a dark side to the escort/call-girl industry that exists and destroys people’s lives. The common misconception is that that’s all it is – that’s it’s all glamorous or it’s all dirty, and it’s all of the above. It’s a well-rounded industry.
Now, let me think... who called it? Who pointed out that the media vultures were looking for exactly this kind of story?
Oh, right! That'd be Ren. Let's see... 3:47 on the 11th, Ren posts:
the media wants to talk to sex workers about it. I know, because oddly enough, a certain Renegade and a certain DC reporter had a conversation. I thought maybe it might be an opportunity to bring some light to issues such as sex workers rights and the hypocrisy shown by fellows like Spitzer. However, that is not what the media is interested in. That's not what they want. They want to know how one goes about hiring a "high-end" escort, how prevelant is it, what goes on, do the working girls care if the men are married? What else do they spend money on when with the woman? They want the scandal, the titilation, the naughty little thrill....but nothing too dirty. Nothing about the women on the streets. They don't want to hear about the truly unseemly side of the biz. They want to hear about the men...the rich and powerful men who spend the money on "high-end" girls. They want to hear how the men will fly in to see a girl, or fly her in, spends thousands on her and on the dinners and events and everything else. They want to know how he likes it.And less than 24 hours later, MSNBC obliges.
Ren also mentions not wanting to take part in interviews like that one, because:
The media hardly needs another "tell all" about sex workers and the powerful politicos that hire them when they don't even want to see the women as human...not just the "high end ones". Besides, I distrust what would end up not making it through the editing process.
I can't help but wonder what didn't make it through MSNBC's editing process, too. Especially when questions like "Did you ever feel threatened on a “date”?" get only a one word response: "No." Really? That's all she had to say about the question? Why do I find that hard to believe?
In related news, Spitzer, in his resignation speech:
Over the course of my public life, I have insisted, I believe correctly, that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself. For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor.
Oddly enough, I don't recall any reports of him turning himself in to the police for violating the laws that he so ardently enforced. Anyone want to bet he serves a day in jail? That he even sees the inside of a court? Because I'm betting that his resignation is as far as that goes. Because, you know, there are some pretty different concepts of taking "responsibility" in effect here; if you're a prostitute, taking responsibility means going to jail, but If you're a political figure, taking responsibility is as easy as resigning.
Oh, no doubt, it sucks to have to resign. I imagine it's a real big disappointment to have attained such a position of power, only to see it crumbling beneath you.
I was pretty sure that he was involved in criminal activity, and that we usually dealt with crimes through the criminal justice process. What the hell do I know, though?