The town pickled herring

Let's recap: Oscar Goodman's shtick was a distraction from a study on prostitution in Nevada. Then columnist and Goodmanophobe Jon Ralston proved to be a distraction from Oscar Goodman's shtick being a distraction from a study on prostitution in Nevada, at least for those who dislike Ralston and/or find Goodman credible. And tucked in between, here and there, were some snippets of actual discussion about prostitution in Nevada. Evil incarnate, or economic empowerment? "Systematic, insitutionalized degradation" of women, or women being free to "choose how they want to use their bodies in the marketplace?"

For expert insight, we considered trying to reach Louisiana Republican senator, diaper-fetishist and avid whoremonger David Vitter. But National Republican Senatorial Commisseration chairman and staunch Vitter apologist Sen. John Ensign, R-Slanker, has passed along memos to his colleagues written by the bright young things on Little Mikey Slanker's staff and instructing all the big strong War Party senators that whatever else they do, "do not engage liberal blogs directly." So call us cut and run defeatists, but we didn't even try to reach the embodiment of Republican Party morality and the poster boy for the party's deep belief in and practice of strong family values, i.e., Vitter.

Instead, we asked the Nevada chapter of the National Organization of Women what to make about all the recent professional talk about professional sex. True, NOW might not have as much expertise on prostitutes and their working conditions as the Ensign-sheltered Vitter. But nor is the organization noted for its lying, faux sincerity or an eager and shameless embrace of full-on hypocrisy for political gain, like Vitter (and, for that matter, Ensign). So we figured NOW would do.

The following statement was helpfully sent over from Nevada NOW's Jessica Brown:

As a national organization, NOW does not take a position on legal or illegal prostitution.  Taking a position on prostitution is a red herring that distracts from the issues that contribute to prostitution.  71% of Americans earning less than a living wage are women, and many of those women are the head of household.  500,000 women and children are trafficked into the United States every year, and girls involved in prostitution are increasingly getting younger, dropping from 14, to 13 and 12 years of age.  Scholars and activists on both sides of the legalize prostitution debate can agree that human trafficking is unacceptable.  Also, some argue that the chronic underfunding of domestic violence and sexual violence shelters can contribute to forced prostitution.

NOW works hard on ameliorating these problems.  To take a position on legalized prostitution would require us to draw conclusions based on theories and conflicting evidence in the scholarly debate. We would rather work on root causes of the problems, problems that we can at least make some headway in improving through grassroots lobbying and education.

First, if a position on prostitution is a red herring, and Goodman is a distraction from a red herring, what does that make Goodman? A red zooplankton, perhaps? A smoked sardine of an altogether different color? A herring that has been preserved through fermentation?

Second, 'tis true that people on both sides share the same position on transporting women and girls over state lines or international borders against their will to become compulsory sex workers: they're against it.  And call us naive, but human trafficking seems like a far bigger issue than the argument that seems to have taken hold 'round here of late over whether some women are sex workers by choice.

If they want to play, the legalization crowd might want to develop a strong case on how legal brothels will stem human trafficking through rigorous government licensing requirements, inspection, monitoring and strict regulation (which of course would be unlikely to happen under the government-hating administration of the nation's worst governor, who thinks he should be able to have sex with unwilling partners without having to pay for it anyway). Developing such a case wouldn't sweep legal brothels onto the scene any time soon. But it would make the community's discussion more meaningful, assuming the community is going to continue to have a discussion beyond, oh, next week.

Meantime, inasmuch as no headlong rush to legalization can be spotted on the horizon, those opposed to legalization might want to back away from their gallant fight against a straw man and shift their priorities, using their considerable passions and talents to help a state that is notorious for policy foot-dragging figure out how better to crack down — not on streetwalkers and johns, but on human traffickers.

And as for obscure Assemblyman Bob Beers (pictured, at left, because we know, we know, nobody's ever seen him before), it's easy to see why he is disappointed that having the same name as another batshit crazy ideologue hasn't yet translated into a similarly visible public profile, as the unknown assemblyman so clearly hoped and planned. His call to outlaw prostitution might be just the ticket to garner his long sought-after headlines and stroke his ego. But since there is about 3,264 times as much illegal prostitution in Nevada as legal prostitution (admittedly an estimate), his bill doesn't doesn't do jack to address the larger issue. Oh, which larger issue? Pick one.

In fact, it's tempting to say Beers' contribution is even less relevant than a Goodman-Ralston spat — except the available bandwidth on the public dialog spectrum for things that are less relevant than a Goodman-Ralston spat is very, very narrow (and most of that space is already occupied by the perpetual pissing match between R-J publisher Sherm Frederick and Las Vegas Sun patriarch Brian Greenspun).

Comments

Bob Beers (republican), of assembly district 21 used the other bob beers name, or, I should say, lack of familiarity among the not so bright voters of aforesaid assembly district, to get elected to the assembly, so now he introduced a bill to outlaw prostituion in Nevada, as governor gibbons (republican of ?) has requested and said he would sign if someone would send one to him, so maybe again he seeks cheap name recognition or seeks a job in the governor's patronage pool when he fails to retain his assembly seat 21.

[Keeping Them Honest]

Gibbons couldn't sign a bill outlawing prostitution. As his failure at McCormick and Schmick proved, not even a woman who is supposedly falling down drunk would go to bed with him. If he wants to get laid, he has to pay for it.

[Larry Craig]

A comment from Vitter? brilliant.

[Team Rory]

How about a Gleaner contest? To which funny-named "Committee" was Hizzoner going to be named by the Clinton campaign, in what would have undoubtedly been a "major announcement," before he got quoted on the NYT Op-Ed page calling brothels "marvelous" and threatening to hit a columnist in the head with a baseball bat?

a) "Winning in the West" Spokesman?
b) Town Drunk Advisory Committee?
c) Homeless Outreach Board?
d) Norman Hsu Defense Fund?

No shit?

[Keeping Them Honest]

Hey, Bob Herbert is supposed to be on with Ralston today. And he thinks GOODMAN was an egomaniac? Wait till he finds out what "journalism" is like around here. And since Herbert is a straight-talking liberal, maybe he'll even think it strange if and when he finds out why Ralston doesn't like Goodman, and how Ralston is a propagandist for all of the big money people here who Herbert wouldn't like!