"DC hookers"

[vidcc]

just to let you know, although I wouldn't visit one myself I think prostitution should be legalised and controlled. This would make combating disease easier and greatly reduce activity in residential areas. IMO

I'm curious. If your for legalizing prostitution why would you care who is on the list other than to see people whom you dont agree with politically taken down...no pun intended?

I've already given my reason and it's not about me agreeing or disagreeing with them politically.
I am not advocating "politically taking them down" It's about ethical standards and credibility on specific issues. If the voters feel they should be dropped, or with the appointees the party feels they need to go that's up to them.

There was a great line I heard about "the values voters"....they are interested in moral behavior......not their own....yours


Is it in the public interest to know that a member of ted haggards congregation is gay? not one bit

Is it in the public interest to know that while ted haggard was preaching that homosexuality is a moral sin he was having drug enhanced gay sex, absolutely.

"practice what you preach" sums it up nicely.

Tobias was in charge of a policy that refused funds to groups fighting AIDs that worked with prostitutes because they say that any policy that includes condom use is encouraging prostitution which goes against their beliefs that there should be no sex outside marriage.
It seems Tobias disagreed with the policy he was wielding and was making amends by giving the hookers the money directly. (ironically the only thing that encourages prostitution is people using prostitutes) The icing on the cake would be if he wasn't just breaking his abstinence values but was using a condom while he did it

[MaxOverlord]

I've already given my reason and it's not about me agreeing or disagreeing with them politically.
I am not advocating "politically taking them down" It's about ethical standards and credibility on specific issues.

Fine. Then assuming the list is released and all the names are released are we then to cross-reference the list of people in certain positions of power with everything they may or may not have said in regards to prostitution?
Seems like a helluva task..no?

[vidcc]

I've already given my reason and it's not about me agreeing or disagreeing with them politically.
I am not advocating "politically taking them down" It's about ethical standards and credibility on specific issues.

Fine. Then assuming the list is released and all the names are released are we then to cross-reference the list of people in certain positions of power with everything they may or may not have said in regards to prostitution?
Seems like a helluva task..no?

The list is in the hands of the media, ABC news I believe. I made the question a generalization, but if you like add should the names be made public by the media.

I'm guessing there will be names from the whole political spectrum as well and moral spectrum.

I'm sure if one of the presidential candidates are on there the news would come out. (depends on which party how or if Fox reports it)

[MaxOverlord]

The list is in the hands of the media, ABC news I believe. I made the question a generalization, but if you like add should the names be made public by the media.

I'm guessing there will be names from the whole political spectrum as well and moral spectrum.

I'm sure if one of the presidential candidates are on there the news would come out. (depends on which party how or if Fox reports it)

ABC does have the list. And I'm sure there are more than a few big fish in it. Don't know what Fox would have to do with choosing to report names if the list is in the hands of ABC. I doubt ABC is gonna dice up the list and give to other media outlets. If your implying that FOX may chose to "forget to mention" certain names than it wouldn't be surprising. Just as ABC or NBC or MSNBC would chose to focus on certain names above others.

Either way it's gonna be a blood feud between left and right. Speculations will be completely ridiculous and it won't end soon enough for me personally. IMO most of the "News" is not "New" it's just the same ole' Gotcha Game over and over and over again. Probably why Washington can't get a damn thing done. Politicians are too worried about re-election to do their service. I can't think of a single Politician I wouldn't like to kick in the ass...that includes left and right.

Power Grab........... P.S.....sorry because you've been caught doesn't really count in my book......

[lynx]

I think snee had it about right, all or none. Anything else is discriminatory.

It comes down to this, if you don't believe you are doing anything wrong why would you be bothered about having your name published? Conversely, if you do believe you are doing something wrong then you have no reason to complain when someone exposes you.

Of course, if the media started publishing names, all of them, the public would very rapidly lose interest. The media wouldn't want that since it deprives them of the potential for yet another juicy scandal sometime in the future.

In a way this can be compared to homosexual behaviour. Not many years ago there would have been outrage if a public figure was revealed to be homosexual. By and large there is very little reaction from the general public these days. This has been largely been brought about by openness.

If other people were willing to be more open about how they behave then more of the moral taboos might be exposed for the hypocrisy they are. While they keep their secrets "in the closet" this is not likely to happen.

[vidcc]

ABC does have the list. And I'm sure there are more than a few big fish in it. Don't know what Fox would have to do with choosing to report names if the list is in the hands of ABC. I doubt ABC is gonna dice up the list and give to other media outlets. If your implying that FOX may chose to "forget to mention" certain names than it wouldn't be surprising. Just as ABC or NBC or MSNBC would chose to focus on certain names above others.

The point was if a presidential candidate was on the list it would be reported on all channels, doesn't matter who broke the story. And it would depend on which party the candidate was as to how fox reports/frames the news.

[vidcc]

I think snee had it about right, all or none. Anything else is discriminatory.

While I pretty much agree with the rest of what you posted, we are talking about the media here, not officialdom.
The media has to make a choice of what is newsworthy/ interesting to it's audience. This may not seem fair, but hey that's life.
You pretty much said this in your post but I am replying to the emboldened bit

[j2k4]

A "CIA operative" fits the definition of "public employee".

If it occurs Valerie Plame gave in to, say, a latent lesbian inclination somewhere along the line, should this Deborah Palfrey be indicted before Pat Fitzgerald's grand jury and tried?

Just curious.

Perhaps I should narrow the definition down to public employees that are involved in policy making or carrying out those policies.

Should the name of that straw man be made public? Where is there any mention of convicting these people? The thread is about if the names should be made public once confirmed.

I make the case for people such as Tobias because of the nature of his position. I don't really care if he uses hookers. I make no case as to if he should have been fired, he chose to resign (or was asked to).

What I would say that any cops on the list would be candidates for naming. Firemen, no.

There are plenty of instances where the lives of private citizens have been ruined by the release of such information; it happens in most legal actions involving solicitation, in fact.

Why should we be compelled to follow the liberal inclination to split hairs, instead of tossing out the lot of names for public comsumption/comdemnation/what-have-you?

Bad shit often happens to good people, but why should the media-consuming public be precluded from standing and cheering when it happens to bad people?