February 12, 2020

"Even by Trumpian standards, the jowly Barr, in his large round glasses, pinstripe suit and Trump-red tie, was strikingly sycophantic."

"'In his State of the Union, President Trump delivered a message of genuine optimism filled with an unapologetic faith in God and in American greatness and in the common virtues of the American people: altruism, industriousness, self-reliance and generosity,' he read, deadpan. Trump, he went on, 'loves this country,' and 'he especially loves you.' The boot-licking performance continued, about Trump’s wise leadership, his unbroken promises and even the just-impeached president’s passionate belief in the 'rule of law.' Then Barr turned to the enemy. He attacked 'rogue DA’s' and 'so-called social-justice reformers,' who are responsible for 'historic levels of homicide and other violent crime' in Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Chicago and Baltimore. Politicians in sanctuary jurisdictions, he said, prefer 'to help criminal aliens evade the law.'"

From a Dana Milbank column in The Washington Post with the somewhat strange headline "Why Bill Barr’s DOJ replaced Catholic Charities with Hookers for Jesus." That headline focuses on something that appears at the top of the column, the news that a group called Hookers received a grant from the Justice Department for its work with victims of human trafficking. I know nothing about the group, but Milbank is simply expecting us to register instinctive contempt for prostitutes, but that's glaringly inconsistent with empathy for the victims of human trafficking.

The description of Milbank at the bottom of his column is: "He sketches the foolish, the fallacious and the felonious in politics." So, in this case, it's Barr — jowly Barr, in his large round glasses — who I think bears a strong resemblance to Elton John at the Oscars — looking like a true survivor, feeling like a little kid...



It's pretty easy to mock someone for being fat and wearing glasses. It's the cheapest shot of all, perhaps even foolish, fallacious, and felonious.

And what about those Hookers for Jesus? Milbank links to this Reuters article, which says:
Hookers for Jesus, which received $530,190 over three years, is run by a born-again Christian trafficking survivor who has lobbied against decriminalizing prostitution.... Hookers for Jesus operates a safe house for female adult trafficking victims that, in 2010 and in 2018....

Hookers for Jesus founder Annie Lobert denied that her organization requires safe house residents to attend services at her church. “We are not going to discriminate toward anyone,” she said. “But,” she added, “we are Christian. And there is an understanding before they come in here that we are Christian.”...
Here's the Wikipedia page for Annie Lobert:
Annie Lobert (born September 26, 1967) is an American former call girl and sex industry worker, who founded the international Christian ministry Hookers for Jesus.... Lobert worked as a prostitute in Las Vegas, Minneapolis, and Hawaii for 16 years. She left the sex industry with the support of Al Nakata, one of her regular customers, who had fallen in love with her....

In 2008, Hookers for Jesus established a safe house program in the Las Vegas area with one of The Church at South Las Vegas intern homes. The program, titled "Destiny House", is a safe haven for victims of sex trafficking and primarily serves prostitutes and local sex trade workers. Annie left CSLV (Church of South Las Vegas) and currently has a new Destiny House Estate.
What's wrong with giving this group a federal grant?

ADDED: From the comments over at WaPo:
Dana, once again, you've shown this President and his jackboots to be naked partisans, willing to sacrifice the good of our Nation for Trump's own personal gain....
That raises 2 questions: 1. Are you really naked if you're still wearing shoes/boots? and 2. If you read about victimized prostitutes and then you feel moved to talk in terms of nakedness, is your heart in the right place?

128 comments:

Annie C. said...

What's wrong with giving this group a federal grant?"

Nothing.

Mr Wibble said...

"Decriminalizatin" and normalization of prostitution are high on the list of left-wing goals. Any group that opposes it must be destroyed.

tim maguire said...

Initially, the criticism of Barr seemed like the usual attacks against anyone working for Trump. He's been a dedicated honest effective civil servant for many years, then, overnight, he becomes a bible-thumping monster.

Bu the does say a lot of unsettling things. I'm having trouble putting the two together to come up with a coherent opinion.

henry said...

What is right about giving any group a government grant? The Constitution does not have an article specifying redistribution of wealth (penumbrae aside).

MacMacConnell said...

"What's wrong with giving this group a federal grant?"

Everything, because it's not call Acorn or Working Families Party.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Dana Milbank - democrat supporting/ Democrat corrupt excusing boot-licking a-hole.

tim maguire said...

Milbank is simply expecting us to register instinctive contempt for prostitutes, but that's glaringly inconsistent with empathy

And business as usual for the left.

Infinite Monkeys said...

Did he describe people who praised Obama as "bootlickers"?

The thing about Trump supporters is, they follow Trump in getting energy from the insults. How many t-shirts were sold, declaring that the wearer was a "deplorable"? Those old tactics that worked with people such as Romney aren't working any more. Sad!

Beasts of England said...

That reminds me: I’m supposed to submit my ‘Strippers for World Peace’ paperwork this afternoon before the grant deadline.

JRoberts said...

Milbank was not expecting you, or anyone else, to actually look into what "Hookers for Jesus" really does. I wonder how much Milbank knew about the organization before using it's name as a way to imply scandal and tarnish the Trump administration.

Related, I saw a HuffPo link this morning for an article implying the Trump administration is openly attempting to decriminalize "white collar crime". The photo with the article shows a roulette wheel surrounded by Trump, Harvey Weinsteen and Jeffery Epstein. More guilt by assumed association.

Seeing Red said...

—Decriminalization" and normalization of prostitution are high on the list of left-wing goals. Any group that opposes it must be destroyed.—


Who used to say that party wants woman available for sex and taxes?

Seeing Red said...

Oh, Mary Magdalene. They just keep stepping in it.

Amadeus 48 said...

Dana Milbank is exceptionally stupid and vicious.

If he dislikes Barr now, wait a few months. Barr is not running a popularity shop. He speaks with authority. He is the best appointment any president has made since Ronald Reagan appointed George Schultz Secretary of State.

J. Farmer said...

I’d say, decriminalization, yes. Normalization, no.

Mike Sylwester said...

Democracy Dies in Darkness!

Michael K said...

Milbank is a nasty bitter ender. Nothing worth reading.

William said...

The woman has an interesting back story--romantic even. There used to be a time when Hollywood would sign up Julia Roberts and make a movie about such a life. Not a chance now though.

Lucid-Ideas said...

@Mr. Wibble

"'Decriminalization' and normalization of prostitution are high on the list of left-wing goals."

+1000 correct. Anyone who can't see this as a fundamental goal of the unholy alliance between feminism and the political left is not paying attention. They want your daughter turned into a whore, and your son a john. They absolutely want America in its entirety to be a microcosm of the most forlorn of black communities in America, while simultaneously avoiding such a fate for their own children whom they will culturally shelter from such a fate as much as possible, while encouraging them to 'prey' on the new chattels they've created.

They do not wish this for themselves and their descendants, just for you and yours.

Amadeus 48 said...

Oh, yeah. Milbank is also a Demmie lickspittle and bootlicker. Yech.

Yay, Barr!

zipity said...

"What's wrong with giving this group a federal grant? "

Easy. ORANGE MAN BAD!

CJinPA said...

Did Barr ever talk about the President like Eric Holder talked about his relationship with Obama?

"I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy."

By Milbank's definition, if Barr is a sycophant, what word would he use for Holder? That's the problem with throwing labels around like that, you establish a baseline that everyone can use to judge you.

BarrySanders20 said...

This is the smarmy establishment having a tantrum. It's what losing power, prestige, and influence looks like. It's not fair!

Also, I just found out that this Dana is a man. Who knew?

William said...

If you wish to transfer an illness from one human being to another, there's no better way than by having sex with them. Prostitution is an inherently dangerous profession even when you leave out the serial murderers and abusive pimps. When people talk about normalizing it, there should be more discussion about the health risks.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The collective corrupt left, including just about everyone on the payroll at WaPo(D) - they are addicted to their own lawlessness and above the law status - which is why Barr must be destroyed. Even Barr's appearance must be ridiculed by the collective corrupt left.

Jersey Fled said...

Barr is the Democrat's nightmare.

Bob Boyd said...

Barr must be over the target.

RMc said...

What's wrong with giving this group a federal grant?

It's wrong because Orange Man done it. (Also, hookers.)

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"They want your daughter turned into a whore, and your son a john"

Anybody who thinks this overstates the case: think of those articles in Teen Vogue glamorizing prostitution, abortion, and kinky sex.

The bizarre thing is it runs parallel with #MeToo and priggish hysteria about "the male gaze," etc.

Gunner said...

According to the Black Flunkies for the Preservation of Illegal Immigrants and Transgenders (The Root), the Hookers are anti-gay.

hombre said...

Most Democrats, even the imbecilic mediaswine realize that many prominent Democrats, particularly Obots, and Deep Staters are eminently, if not imminently, indictable.

Therefore, it is necessary to vilify and defame Barr, who is no sycophant, you know, for cover. Like the impeachment covered for Biden. Heh!

Hopefully, it will piss Barr off.

Seeing Red said...

It actually sounds like a good group.

I might send them a donation.

CJinPA said...

He attacked 'rogue DA’s' and 'so-called social-justice reformers,'

The left-wing “social justice movement” is real, and it’s moving from general academia, to law schools, to district attorney offices. Everyone who is paying attention sees it.

University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax makes the utterly reasonable argument that this is a horrible development.

stevew said...

Nearly every day we get a fresh example of how we can get the Left to oppose a policy or idea: have Trump announce his support for it. Even if the announcement comes from a subordinate.

Ray - SoCal said...

Three anti Trump hit pieces blogged about, some more subtle than others.

Trump does live in their heads!

Popularity of the Prince is due to Trump, he’s coursening our culture!

Trumpian standards - oh, the horror! Bill Barr / Trump hit piece. Probably was timed to be published as part of the Roger Stone Sentencing Trap that was set by the prosecutors for Barr.

Trump, unencumbered by the need to be re-elected - we need to to take action prevent that - Thomas Friedman. So formulaic, there is a Thomas Friedman oped generator. I heard him speak once in person, and it was very disappointing, Nd he came across as condescending. His answer to my question on journalism bias was unimpressive.

Sebastian said...

"What's wrong with giving this group a federal grant?"

When Trump and Barr do something right, it's wrong. Therefore, it's wrong.

Long post short: progs gonna prog.

Althouse, you do realize, don't you, that the Milbanks in the MSM despise you, too?

Gusty Winds said...

He despises Jesus AND Mary Magdalene???

Lucid-Ideas said...

@exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil

I can't seem to find it, but Tyler Cowen's blog "Marginal Revolution" had a link (he does a daily links that I highly recommend) recently to an NBER paper talking about this exact thing.

That 'elites' very often project and 'perform' the types of behaviors they expect, want and desire in people they consider beneath them in class. A good example of this is nuclear families, and that there are exceedingly few single-parent households among families above a certain income threshold.

They talk about sex-positivity but do not live it themselves.
They talk about immigration while living in gated communities.
They talk about redistribution while hoarding cash.
They talk about X, Y, or Z but a aghast to introduce X, Y, or Z in the private lives and homes.

There is nothing quite so supportive of your belief that you are a higher class than convincing those you believe to be below you to debase themselves consciously or unconsciously. In addition to reinforcing your belief that you are higher class, you gain a group of people that you now feel morally exempt from abusing, and abusing them makes you feel better.

narciso said...

Milbanks doesnt know enough to get out of the rain, catholic charities is all about amnesty and other prog causes.

chickelit said...

Dana Milbank has an effeminate first name and he insults like a girl.

See what I did there, Ms. Milbank? It's effective, huh?

pious agnostic said...

CJinPA said...
...

By Milbank's definition, if Barr is a sycophant, what word would he use for Holder?

2/12/20, 8:36 AM


Milbank (who I am told is a man) would use words like "stalwart", "loyal", "like-minded", "courageous", "brave", "trustworthy."

Obvs.

Quaestor said...

WaPo knows serious indictments are coming soon, which explains why they've re-opened the Death to Ken Starr playbook

I Callahan said...

I’d say, decriminalization, yes. Normalization, no.

What libertarians always fail to see is the fact that once you have the one, the other is absolutely inevitable. There's never been an exception to that rule.

Limited blogger said...

Pure unadulterated hatred, as usual.

deepelemblues said...

Trying to delegitimize Barr has worked so well thus far. They've got a fevah and the only prescription is more banging their heads against the Barr wall.

Mr Wibble said...

The bizarre thing is it runs parallel with #MeToo and priggish hysteria about "the male gaze," etc.

Not really, once you realize that progressivism is basically an attempt counter perceived inequality, and that social justice warriorism is radical progressivism adapted for the purposes of social positioning.

Both the pro-whore and anti-toxic-masculinity arguments are attempts to undermine institutions and cultural behaviors adopted in response to normal interactions between men and women.

pacwest said...

Wasn't there a recent article in a teen magazine on how to have better sex by 'bootlicking'? Or maybe that was the ciriculum for the 3rd grade sex ed class. I forget.

Mr Wibble said...

What libertarians always fail to see is the fact that once you have the one, the other is absolutely inevitable. There's never been an exception to that rule.

Want to legalize prostitution? Fine, but only if they're required to register into a publicly searchable database.

Big Mike said...

What's wrong with giving this group a federal grant?

Because they’re Hookers for Jesus, silly. If they were Hookers for Moses or Hookers for Mohammed or Hookers for Buddha or even Hookers for Baal, they’d be okay.

Otto said...

Ann has started her '2020 Democrat presidential campaign". Watch her carefully as she cherry picks amti-Trump articles to feature. Forget about her diversionary comments they are a smokescreen. She is ascribing to the muscle memory theory, hoping the barrage of anti-Trump references for the next months will sink in.

I Callahan said...

Otto - you're a one-trick pony. Come into a thread, drop a deuce about how bad Ann is, then leave. What's the point?

wendybar said...

Dana is jealous that the Democrats didn't think of this first.

Big Mike said...

Also, I just found out that this Dana is a man. Who knew?

Technically true.

Gusty Winds said...

Dana Milbank hates Trump and Barr more than he hates human trafficking.

wendybar said...

Why do Democrats get a pass for making fun of peoples looks??

Lucid-Ideas said...

Some Reddit poster had an interesting take on 'prostitution normalization' as regards the recent transgenderism phenomenon.

Paraphrasing, transgenderism is the elite's ultimate humiliation of middle-class white males. Although other ethnic groups have trans-people, they don't mind that as much because they expect that kind of behavior from 'them' anyway. But not from middle-class white males. They also bring to the table higher income and social insurances that allow them better access to the drugs and visibility necessary to 'normalize' the behavior. The elite's themselves do not approve of transgenderism (although they very likely sexually abuse them) and precious few of their children become trans, but that doesn't mean your children deserve the same dignity or esteem.

It is not a mistake or a coincidence that the vast number of legit trans-people are also likely prostitutes. The whole entire agenda, feminism included, is designed to weaken the sexual market value of the middle-class and create a more 'feudal' society where the middle is reduced to nothingness, and elites get to claim figuratively and literally the right of prima nocte sexually and economically on anyone they see fit.

Sex work is low class. It has always been low class. Allusions to it not being low class are lies. The people who say it is not low class want you to be low class.

Jess said...

Milbank likes to stir the pot. He's good at it and generally irritates for a reaction.

Gretchen said...

The Obama justice department sued Little Sisters of the Poor.

Barr never said he was Trump's wingman. These people have double standards like nothing I have ever seen, no self-awareness.

Lucid-Ideas said...

@Mr. Wibble

"Want to legalize prostitution? Fine, but only if they're required to register into a publicly searchable database."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamia

To be a female or male prostitute in Roman law was to incur infamia from the Censors. Regardless of your social position your name would be forever listed in the ledger, nor could it ever be removed.

Many 'infamia' in ancient Rome were wealthy, many with rich social lives and fame, but they were forever attainted by the distinction of the infamia. You could not inherit. You could not give testimony. You could not hold religious office.

Like I said, across the whole world (asia included) sex work is low class. It forever attaints those that undertake it.

Ken B said...

Sounds like a good group to me. The liberals I know though object to supporting any Christian organization no matter what. I heard one object to a homeless shelter.
Of course they are not in favor of “normalization”. Quite the opposite.

J. Farmer said...

@I Callahan:

What libertarians always fail to see is the fact that once you have the one, the other is absolutely inevitable. There's never been an exception to that rule.

I am not a libertarian, but is it your position that the only way to stigmatize something is to make it illegal? Consider, for example, that prostitution is legal in Singapore and illegal in Thailand.

Wince said...

A proverbial hooker with a heart of gold.

rhhardin said...

Trump is a normal educated adult, according to Scott Adams, who had a one on one conversation with him. He suits his personality to the occasion.

Which is obvious to anybody from Trump's sense of humor.

CJinPA said...

Lucid-Ideas said...That 'elites' very often project and 'perform' the types of behaviors they expect, want and desire in people they consider beneath them in class. A good example of this is nuclear families, and that there are exceedingly few single-parent households among families above a certain income threshold.

Charles Murray did a good job laying this out in "Coming Apart." If you thought the moralizing of old school elites was bad, at least then it was for the general good of society. Today, elites will tell you all family structures are equal, damning generations of children to lives at risk for poverty, abuse, crime and more.

And, once you make these generations dependent on government, the elite get the progressive government they want. Pretty sinister.

Ken B said...

Farmer
I agree about stigmatizing, and disapproval but tolerating. This is really a huge problem with our “non judgmental “ ethos. If you cannot express disapproval then when you come across something you really do object to the only available method is to outlaw it. But subtle degrees of disapproval work so much better and such lower cost.

Calypso Facto said...

"What libertarians always fail to see is the fact that once you have the one, the other is absolutely inevitable. There's never been an exception to that rule."

It's a nice sound bite, but is it true? I saw legal prostitution in Nevada and in Germany, but I never felt like it was "normalized" or condoned either place.

Drago said...

Jersey Fled: "Barr is the Democrat's nightmare."

Barr is the Democrat's/LLR's/NeverTrumpers nightmare.

FIFY

Laslo Spatula said...

I am against sex-trafficking.

We have enough liberal-arts girls here in the US needing to pay off their college debt that we don't need to import any hookers.

Unless it's that dang diversity thing again.

I am Laslo.

Lucid-Ideas said...

About 7-8 years ago I was in a relationship where I found out she'd been a 'camgirl' in her past. Funny enough this information came to me by way of one of her friends (came to me in a way intended to appear by accident...but I don't think so, even women hate whores).

She couldn't wrap her head around why I was disgusted by this and was ending the relationship. She thought this was ok. Normal. That there wasn't anything wrong with her image being captured and saved on some other dude's hard drive while trying to have a serious relationship with me. She made the typical 'economic' arguments blah blah blah.

All I saw was someone who didn't have any dignity to begin with, much less losing any in doing what she did. I am not an anomaly. She is single to this day. The men she's been with who've learned have bolted or the ones who stick around treat her the way she deserves to be treated, as a side-piece.

I am not an anomaly, regardless or what the media screams about learning to love whores. No man that has any respect in himself wants a person like that for anything other than sex...and sometimes not even that.

mockturtle said...

What's wrong with giving this group a federal grant?"

Nothing.


I agree with Annie C. The group appears to have worthy goals. And, yes, prostitution should be decriminalized. But pimps should be prosecuted. Why can't there be old-fashioned 'whore houses' with a 'madam' in charge and health requirements? No, I don't think prostitution is 'OK' but neither do I think homosexual activity is 'OK'. It's sad that some women see selling their bodies as their only way to survive. Many are drug addicts and need to be rehabilitated into health and a better career. But it shouldn't be a criminal offense for the woman or her customer. JMHO.

MD Greene said...

"Decriminalization' and normalization of prostitution are high on the list of left-wing goals."

It's not just the left. Many libertarians support this too.

They've even come up with a new non-judgy name for it: Sex work.

I know what I'd do if someone I cared about started working in the "sex industry."

mikee said...

Reality is a fungible material for leftists. It is redefined to suit the needs of the moment.
That this does not correllate with actual reality is only a problem for nonleftists, who keep insisting the leftists aren't speaking about reality.

TheThinMan said...

Taking a liberal op-ed column and poking holes in its logic is really besides the point. It’s kind of like critically going through a Letter to Penthouse. Both are there to satisfy a basic need in the reader. Logic has nothing to do with it.

mockturtle said...

If you cannot express disapproval then when you come across something you really do object to the only available method is to outlaw it. But subtle degrees of disapproval work so much better and such lower cost.

Exactly, Ken B! Our hostess might disapprove of men in shorts but I'm sure she wouldn't favor criminalizing it. [Would she???] I disapprove of a lot of things including rap music but don't favor criminalizing it. Unless it's after midnight and everyone is trying to sleep.

stevew said...

Neither criminalizing nor social disapproval have reduced prostitution. Discuss.

h said...

What I've begun to notice about anti-Trump commenters is that they latch onto whatever easy and cheap derogatory comment they can find. But it's hard to find substantive arguments against Trump or in favor of their own policies (e.g. Milbank could have taken issue with Barr's assertions about crime in Democratic-ruled cities). I guess to the anti-Trump crowd, his failings are so obvious that they don't need any explication or documentation. And if their overall strategy is "we don't need to attract any new supporters, we only need to gin up enthusiasm among those who already agree with us," then perhaps clever (?) name-calling is the right approach. But a persuadable voter who is not already in the anti-Trump camp sees these comments and thinks, "You don't have any substantive comment except name calling? That's not going to persuade me."

Roy Jacobsen said...

You lost me at "Dana Milbank."

DarkHelmet said...

The Washington Post is a pure propaganda outlet. Why bother to read it? Might as well just subscribe to the DNC's press releases.

Roy Jacobsen said...

stevew said...
Neither criminalizing nor social disapproval have reduced prostitution. Discuss.

So? I'm not sure that "criminalizing" and "social disapproval" have reduced murder rates.

Roy Jacobsen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

I know what I'd do if someone I cared about started working in the "sex industry."

Call the cops and have them thrown in jail?

Seeing Red said...

— Charles Murray did a good job laying this out in "Coming Apart." If you thought the moralizing of old school elites was bad, at least then it was for the general good of society. Today, elites will tell you all family structures are equal, damning generations of children to lives at risk for poverty, abuse, crime and more.

And, once you make these generations dependent on government, the elite get the progressive government they want. Pretty sinister.—


Plus no competition.

Sebastian said...

Milbank is a useful indicator of the current thrust of progressivism. Talked recently with a very liberal acquaintance who out of nowhere starts screaming about Barr. He triggers them.

They should be triggered: Barr is onto progs' game, and understands perhaps better than Trump the existential threat they represent.

J. Farmer said...

So? I'm not sure that "criminalizing" and "social disapproval" have reduced murder rates.

Depends on what you mean by "criminalizing." Keeping murderers in prison or executing them, I suspect, has played at least some role in reducing murder rates.

But I do think demographics is an underappreciated explanation for the decline in crime rates. The best crime reduction program is a 30th birthday.

I Callahan said...

Consider, for example, that prostitution is legal in Singapore and illegal in Thailand.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. The long term bad effects of legalization of something that is generally bad for a society is indisputable. If you’re making the point that Singapore’s society doesn’t have issues and Thailand’s does, and prostitution does not have any effect on that, then make that point.

Sebastian said...

"Taking a liberal op-ed column and poking holes in its logic is really besides the point."

True. I love a good Althousian fisking as much as anyone, but it also becomes a way to keep up the illusion that there's discourse going on, that there are arguments to be made, that we can discuss things in good faith.

When it comes to progs, assuming good faith is now a form of bad faith.

mockturtle said...

Stepping into the briar patch here but it has always seemed to me that Catholics find sex basically dirty. Maybe that's why priests prefer nice, clean young boys.

SDaly said...

I’d say, decriminalization, yes. Normalization, no.

That is a fantasy. Once something is decriminalized, in this society, it must be celebrated and accepted as just someone else's choice that must not be judged. It will also become an above-board business that attracts other professionals, lawyers, for example, like barnacles.

mockturtle said...

That is a fantasy. Once something is decriminalized, in this society, it must be celebrated and accepted as just someone else's choice that must not be judged.

You are right about that, SDaly. Today, the lines between 'right' and 'wrong' are confused with statutory law. Which is why we need to protect freedom of speech and religion so that it's not illegal to condemn activity as wrong or sinful without resorting to criminalizing it. True separation of church and state works to the advantage of both, IMO.

Anonymous said...

"That raises 2 questions: 1. Are you really naked if you're still wearing shoes/boots? and 2. If you read about victimized prostitutes and then you feel moved to talk in terms of nakedness, is your heart in the right place?"

No, you missed the one question raised by the article as a whole, which obviates your two: Are Milbank and those WaPo commenters too stupid and nasty to be worth analyzing and criticizing?*

Answer key: Yes.

Correction: Your question #1 is nonetheless a good question worth raising.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

The doing his job AG and duly enforcing the law is corruption, to a Dem.

MD Greene said...

I know what I'd do if someone I cared about started working in the "sex industry."

Call the cops and have them thrown in jail?

Of course not. I'd go to her and say this: "What you are doing leads nowhere good. You are better than that." If she didn't want to hear it, I'd get other relatives and friends to say the same thing. If she pled poverty, one of us would move her into "their" house until she got on her feet financially. How hard is that?

Andrew said...

mockturtle

You evidently don't known many Catholics. My nine brothers and sisters would laugh.

mockturtle said...

You evidently don't known many Catholics. My nine brothers and sisters would laugh.

I'm glad to hear they would laugh, Andrew. :-D

Lucien said...

I’d rather have a Jowly Barr than a Gom Jabbar.

Howard said...

"Good Faith" means laying on the bullshit extra thick.

Howard said...

J Farmer: you people are moving up in the world when conservatives like mock turtle no longer refer to homosexuals as child molesters but rather equates it with prostitution. Baby steps

Caligula said...

"Milbank was not expecting you, or anyone else, to actually look into what "Hookers for Jesus" really does." Perhaps not, but the fact that this group is actually Christian is sufficient to make it hate-worthy to much of the WaPo's audience.

Howard said...

Maybe if they renamed the group sisters of Mary Magdalene it would be less controversial.

walter said...

Be careful about wearing a red tie to work.

Yancey Ward said...

This is an example of the myopia of the Left and their pundits. Milbank believes this story will somehow drive a wedge between Trump and some of his supporters, but the only thing that most people will get from this story is that Trump/Barr DoJ thought a group fighting human trafficking was worthy of a grant. I mean, how deranged do you have to be to think that is bad thing to support?

Anonymous said...

mock: Stepping into the briar patch here but it has always seemed to me that Catholics find sex basically dirty.

Mock, your attitude to Catholicism reminds me of the more fundie-flavored Protestants of my childhood, and their rather phantasmagoric yet tenaciously held ideas about Catholics. (Most of which seemed to have been derived from Jack Chick tracts).

We made fun of them of them in turn, for their stick-up-the-ass proscriptions against all the quotidian sensual creaturely pleasures of existence that we Catholics knew God meant us to enjoy prudently. We, too, had a corpus of theory about why they thundered against wine-drinking, and non-frumpy clothes, and dancing, and partying on Mardi Gras as the good Lord intended, all of it entirely derogatory and speaking to their essential barbarity and general fucked-upedness.

Theorizing indulged in no doubt with about as much knowledge and justice as their own.

walter said...

Blogger BarrySanders20 said...Also, I just found out that this Dana is a man. Who knew?
--
Especially given the unnecessary detail about Barr's looks, which usually suggests otherwise.

mockturtle said...

Point taken, Angle-Dyne, but with the proverbial grain of NaCl. ;-) Seriously, I can't relate to the 'fundies' of whom you speak and, as I grew up in an atheist/agnostic family, I wasn't exposed to them but I'm sure they were well deserving of your contempt.

Bay Area Guy said...

From a Dana Milbank column in The Washington Post with the somewhat strange headline "Why Bill Barr’s DOJ replaced Catholic Charities with Hookers for Jesus."

As a general proposition, I am for hookers and Jesus:)

Ralph L said...

Last week, at Crazydaysandnights gossip blog, I learned about women "yachting" and saw a comment by Laslo Spatula.

Are you really naked if you're still wearing shoes/boots?

A(nother) nudist once told me you're not really naked if you have something with you to put on, but in my experience, you feel more naked wearing only shoes. On your feet.

William said...

I was raised as a Catholic. Sex is definitely dirty. The world would be a better place if reading a good book were as pleasurable as rubbing genitals with relative strangers, but there you have it. The god of love has pitched his tent in a place of excrement.

Ralph L said...

Angle, you left out gambling. Remember how Bill Bennett fell from grace.

Bay Area Guy said...

This is actually a good article, but unintended. Here's why:

Nobody, I mean, nobody on Planet Earth knows who Dana Milbank is. Indeed, nobody cares who he is either.

So, he writes this snotty little piece, which will give a few sparkles of fleeting joy to his sorry-ass WaPo buddies in the cafeteria. Great!

But what he is really saying is, Darnit, Trump and Barr own the DOJ, and can do what they want, and we have nobody to protect us!

stevew said...

Hearing the name Dana Milbank always causes me to remember an image of him with an orange knit hat, with a pom-pom, and an orange safety vest.

stan said...

What the hell is wrong with liberals? Carville calls Trump a career criminal who is stealing everything from the White House. That's pretty rich coming from a liar and slanderer who worked for people who actually DID steal from the White House.

Where's the evidence of Trump stealing? He's not even keeping his salary!

And the comment Ann cites about Trump sacrificing the nation for his own personal gain -- What the hell are these people talking about?! What evidence are they relying on?

Are we living in a post-logic world? Is rationality so out of fashion that we don't even bother with facts any more?

rcocean said...

Looking at pictures of Dana Milbank. Most seem shot from the waist up. Hmmm... And as expected Dana is not a 6-2 handsome hunk.

Not in the slightest.

rcocean said...

AG Barr is old and fat. [Dana Sticks tongue out]

Seriously, how's that for great political analysis!

rcocean said...

Trump screwed the pooch when he gave the AG job to Sessions instead of Barr. Think of how differently things would've gone with Barr as AG in Jan 2017. But Trump was loyal, and mistakenly thought Sessions was competent.

mockturtle said...

Unknown asks, somewhat rhetorically, I think: Are we living in a post-logic world? Is rationality so out of fashion that we don't even bother with facts any more?

Why, now that you mention it, yes. We are. And IMO social media will be the instrument of our self-destruction.

narciso said...

we're living in the crazy times, that's for certain,

I remember when milbank made a pledge he wouldn't refer to the huntress for a month, he lasted two days, he also wrote this 'expose' of glen beck, which didn't even make it to the remainder tables,

Tomcc said...

Completely off topic...
Lucid-Ideas @ 9:48, your comment reminded me of the movie Arthur: "You're a hooker? I thought I was doing really great with you!"

Amadeus 48 said...

To many of us in the legal profession, Bill Barr is a giant.

I was so relieved when it was announced that he would be the new AG. We haven't had a good one since Michael Mukasey left. Before that, the last good one was Barr himself.

Gk1 said...

"Talked recently with a very liberal acquaintance who out of nowhere starts screaming about Barr. He triggers them." Same.

There seems to be a visceral hatred for Barr who is seen as turning the tables on the russian collusion engineers and is just investigating how it all came about since its been discovered to be a complete hoax. My friends on the left feel this is unjustified since they don't care by what means Trump is removed from office. Only a few of them are vaguely grasping the immense damage this has done to our institutions, particularly the FBI. Milbank's pissy broadside is part of the ongoing campaign to demean and dismiss Barr as more dirty laundry of Mueller's spills out.

J. Farmer said...

I Callahan:

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

Only that stigmatization can operate independently of legality. Prostitution is much less stigmatized in Thailand, where it's illegal, than it is in Singapore, where it's legal. There is a destructive element to pornography as well, but I don't think the problem would be solved by making pornography illegal. Similarly, I don't think the solution to women involved in prostitution is to put them in jail and give them a criminal record. I'd much rather they money be spent by giving it to organizations like this, which work to provide alternatives to women who wish to get out of the industry.

J. Farmer said...

@Howard:

J Farmer: you people are moving up in the world when conservatives like mock turtle no longer refer to homosexuals as child molesters but rather equates it with prostitution. Baby steps

Well, I don't think that's a very fair reading of mockturtle's point.

mockturtle said...

Thank you, Farmer. I think you know I respect you a great deal.

Jeff said...

Maybe that's why priests prefer nice, clean young boys.
So, do you know what the priest likes most about thirty-nine year olds?



There are thirty of them.

Jeff said...

Catholics find sex basically dirty
Only if you're doing it right.

B Sharpe said...

You do realize that this is part of a coordinated effort to debase Barr as a Trump crony, so that when the indictments of Comey, etc. start "dropping", they can say all of Barr's efforts are partisan "disgusting" politics. When you can't attack the facts, attack the motive. You Betcha!

FinetoShine Network said...

Looking for the best Mehndi Designs? Here we've infinity collection of {New*} Simple, Arabic & Henna these Mehndi Designs 2020 will steal your ❤️ heart!

gadfly said...

Billy "The Walrus" Barr needs to read with the help of his ugly glasses and then explain to Bozo the meaning of U.S. v Booker. Stoney threatened Judge Amy Berman Jackson, so 30 years could be a reasonable sentence.

Trump's tweet about the judge do not help matters either. As expected, Prez Bozo pretends he doesn't know that Stone was convicted by a jury, not by the judge and 7-9 years is the standard recommended sentence. The Walrus lies to the world and Senator Graham-Nasty that a normal sentence is half that long.

Lombino Law Studio said...

After reading this post I found this post is very informative and useful. Thanks for sharing this blog.
Business Lawyer in Las Vegas are required by businesses because of the complex legal environment prevailing today, they have to deal with contracts, corporate governance, intellectual property, and other intricate business laws. Get appoint with our business lawyer.

Amadeus 48 said...

Gadfly--you need to get up to speed. What a jury it was!