The Stanford Daily

Opinions





Comments about "A temple of my very own"


<< Back to A temple of my very own

6 Comments on this article:

Report as: spam offensive It's not about the law... on 4/02/08 at 2am

It's not that I care about whether or not prostitution should be legal. It's that this man, who built a very public, very successful career on prosecuting prostitution rings, was himself a regular customer. It's not that I care about whether or not it's illegal to solicit sex in a public restroom. It's that this man, who may or may not be gay, was allegedly caught soliciting gay sex after holding a very strong, very public anti-gay stance. It's not that I believe that dog fighting rings are any less or more cruel than the mass killing of cows et. al for consumption, it's that the killing of dogs with your own hands, sometimes without actually betting on it, and even when betting, only for a cheap thrill (versus some nutritional value plus a cheap taste thrill), is morally unsettling. As far as the dog's reason for being is concerned.
For some people, it's not about trust or distrust as it relates to the agreed-upon legal code - it's about trust or distrust based on who you pretend to be for your own gain, and who you actually are when you think nobody's looking.

Report as: spam offensive Disappointed on 4/02/08 at 3am

I held a high regard for Kanakia because he seemed willing (almost too eager) to say things that other people might consider too controversial. But this article totally misses the (rather huge) point that Spitzer was forced to resign largely due to his lack of integrity, not his moral transgressions (which was pointed very well by "It's not about the law..."). I am disappointed in this particular opinion piece.

Report as: spam offensive CDizzle on 4/02/08 at 10am

On one side i have to agree with "It's not about the law..." The issue being touted is one of a hypocrite preaching to the choir. The conversation that follows however, is a good snapshot of the reality of American culture. Spitzer and The un-named (super-conservative) congress man reminds me of something that I heard along time ago from a gay friend...he said "If your really really worried about your kids turning out to be gay....they probably will." I think that holds water with this topic. The same people who are soo "one-way or no-way": to me, seem like they are hating something within themselves. I don't find it suprising that any of these recent events occured. I find it amazing that everyday people, fed by the ratings fueled media are going to try to take a stand on a topic where in many cases the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.

It's just another buzz topic that takes our attention off the real news that is happening behind the scenes. Where are the witch hunts to find all these shady lenders who have now cost the taxpayer and his/her dollar billions. Sure the economy will recover, but why is that a burden that gets put on our public programs. It's a real estate ENRON with no defendants.

And what about the steroid/baseball issue....What a bunch of crap. All the while taking attention off Iraq and the poor policy that continues to divide the country.

I don't get why we put up with it... I guess there was a good episode of Grey's on or something....?

Report as: spam offensive eeek on 4/02/08 at 12pm

wo

Report as: spam offensive Worst RK piece yet on 4/02/08 at 12pm

it's fine if you don't read past the headline of the spitzer case, but then you can't write about it in the daily. This showed real lack of understanding - no one really gave a fuck that he fucked a p-tute, it was the fact that he is in office specifically for his work prosecuting and fighting against public figures who fuck p-tutes.

Report as: spam offensive Haha on 4/02/08 at 4pm

Can we all just take some time out of our daily lives to admire the phrasing "no one really gave a fuck that he fucked a p-tute"? I mean, seriously. The word "p-tute" alone is stupendous. But in combination with the dual-fold usage of a synonym for copulate? Touche, good sir, touche.




(Comments are meant to provide a constructive way for users to interact online. Please keep discussion civil, and refrain from using profanity, personal attacks, potentially libelous language, or hate speech. The Stanford Daily is not responsible for any content that appears in the comment section of its Web site. The Daily is not responsible for monitoring the board or removing comments that could be in violation of the policy. The editors of the non-profit newspaper support a free exchange of ideas, even if beliefs expressed are controversial, but The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation claims all rights and sole discretion to delete or not delete any post for any reason at any time. If something is posted in the comment section of the Web site, the expressed view should not be understood as an endorsement by The Daily or any of its agents. All comments must comply with the “Terms and Conditions For Use” as set out in the “About us” section of the Web site, or they may be removed. By posting a comment, you attest that the material is not copyrighted and that you are fully relinquishing all rights of ownership to said content exclusively to The Daily while maintaining full responsibility for what you write.)