Did she really want that foreign language tattoo?

Remember ex-New York Governor Elliot Spitzer? How could you not? It's hard to forget a hard-charging prosecutor famous for going after corporate corruption who was removed from office because he bought the services of a 22 year-old prostitute working for The Emperor's Club VIP who sold their services at prices from $1000 to $5500 per hour.

Ashley Dupre, the prostitute involved, has become a minor celebrity herself as a result of Spitzers downfall. So it should not be surprising that The Daily News published pictures taken of her at the beach in a two-piece swimsuit. The immediate question arose - what did her tattoo - “tutela valui,” - mean? The ever intrepid City Room reporter at the New York Times decided to find out for us, his readers.

To get the Latin scholar perspective, City Room decided to call over to local universities’ classics departments. [Snip]

At Columbia University, a telephone call was answered by Eric Ensley, a graduate student.

This City Room reporter explained that we needed a translation of a Latin phrase, and spelled out the words: T-U-T-E-L-A V-A-L-U-I

“Tutela?” Mr. Ensley said. “That’s weird.”

It’s not real Latin, is it? City Room asked.

“No, it’s not. Where are you pulling this from?”

It’s a tattoo. [Snip]

“‘Tutela’ is a ‘custodian, safeguard, defense’ — something like that,” he said. “It can mean a lot of things. ‘Protection’ is a good translation. ‘Valui’ means ‘I was strong,’ literally. This is the exact translation I can give you, ‘I was strong by means of a keeper, by means of safety.’”

So that was the first answer from Columbia University's Classics Department. But shortly after that, an earlier e-mail to the Classics Department at New York University got a response.

N.Y.U. called us back. City Room’s query had set the department abuzz, said Nancy Smith-Amer, an administrative assistant. “I have something for you they seem to have all agreed to: ‘I fared well by protection.’”

We finally told Mr. Ensley, at Columbia, whose tattoo he was translating.

“Oh, God,” he said. “I guess on some weird level, if you wanted to translate it into some modern sense of the word, You could say, ‘I used protection.’”

Sort of like a guarantee stamped on spoilables for sale at the grocery store. You think?

Hunter S. Thompson would have understood what is going on now

As we watch the federal reserve desperately trying to save the financial markets, we get this report from Greg Palast.

While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was paying an ‘escort’ $4,300 in a hotel room in Washington, just down the road, George Bush’s new Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was secretly handing over $200 billion in a tryst with mortgage bank industry speculators.

Both acts were wanton, wicked and lewd. But there’s a BIG difference. The Governor was using his own checkbook. Bush’s man Bernanke was using ours.

So? Is there a connection? Palast thinks so.

How? Follow the money.

The press has swallowed Wall Street’s line that millions of US families are about to lose their homes because they bought homes they couldn’t afford or took loans too big for their wallets. Ba-LON-ey. That’s blaming the victim.

Here’s what happened. Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the ‘sub-prime’ mortgage and its variants including loans with teeny “introductory” interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called ‘Countrywide’ became America’s top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chunk of these ‘sub-prime.’

Here’s how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 monthly payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain’t worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the “discount” they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. The Grinnings move into their Toyota.

Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.

‘Steering,’ sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called ‘fraudulent conveyance’ or ‘predatory lending’ under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking.

But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hearty – it was OK now to steer’m, fake’m, charge’m and take’m.

But there was this annoying party-pooper. The Attorney General of New York, Eliot Spitzer, who sued these guys to a fare-thee-well. Or tried to.

Instead of regulating the banks that had run amok, Bush’s regulators went on the warpath against Spitzer and states attempting to stop predatory practices. Making an unprecedented use of the legal power of “federal pre-emption,” Bush-bots ordered the states to NOT enforce their consumer protection laws.

Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer’s investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush’s banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws.

Spitzer not only took on Countrywide, he took on their predatory enablers in the investment banking community. Behind Countrywide was the Mother Shark, its funder and now owner, Bank of America.

Is that realistic? Consider my previous post Elliot Spitzer; Prostitutes; Why is the DoJ involved?. It really wasn't reasonable for the Department of Justice to focus on Elliot Spitzer, but we know from the US Attorney Purge that this administration has used the criminal law to silence its critics. Why would the Bush administration be so adamant about fleecing mortgage-holders? Because that's the only place left that there has been any money for over two decades. Quoted in my earlier post "What's happened to America? Over half a century of war and the conservative movement.":

In just the past seven years, US household debt almost doubled and federal debt soared by near two-thirds, rocketing by a combined $10.5 Trillion. The total combined debt of households ($14.4 Trillion) and the federal government ($9.2 Trillion) is now 168% of GDP, far higher even than in the brief spike during World War II. All other levels and ratios of debt also have soared far beyond any past precedent.

Yet, this record-shattering explosion of debt stimulus created the weakest seven year job growth (4.4%) and one of the weakest periods of real GDP growth (18.1%) since the Depression: less than 6 million new jobs ($1.8 million of debt per job) and a mere $4 Trillion increase in GDP.
This period began with the collapse of Wall Street's stock market bubble from the late 1990s and ends now with the collapse of Wall Street's housing and other debt bubbles. That such massive mortgage and consumer borrowing, tax cuts and war spending produced such remarkably weak real economic results suggests the months and years ahead could be quite difficult.

Yet, along with Fed rate cuts for cheaper debt, the only policies seriously considered by this year's crop of Wall Street-funded political candidates is more short-term household and federal debt "stimulus." Locked into a failed, 30-year-old ideology of deregulation and debt, there is no option to compete with the remarkably effective industrial and trade policies pursued by China and others.

2008 will be the ninth consecutive year the US economy grows slower than the world's growth while China grows more than three times faster. In the past seven years of sluggish growth, the US accumulated Manufacturing trade deficits (production shortfalls) of over -$3 Trillion with full Current Account trade losses of -$4.3 Trillion; more than the entire nominal growth of GDP.

This is what the Wall Street Republican financed Reagan Revolution has brought America to. Financial collapse and Department of Justice prosecutions of political opponents who expose the failure of the conservative politicians and the Wall Street crooks bankers who have caused the collapse.

Palast makes the connection between the bailout for Wall Street and Elliot Spitzer here:

When the housing bubble burst and the paint flaked off, investors were left with the poop and the bankers were left with bonuses. Countrywide’s top man, Angelo Mozilo, will ‘earn’ a $77 million buy-out bonus this year on top of the $656 million - over half a billion dollars – he pulled in from 1998 through 2007.

But there were rumblings that the party would soon be over. Angry regulators, burned investors and the weight of millions of homes about to be boarded up were causing the sharks to sink. Countrywide’s stock was down 50%, and Citigroup was off 38%, not pleasing to the Gulf sheiks who now control its biggest share blocks.

Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That’s Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count.

The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure – and got to keep the Grinning’s house. There was no ‘quid’ of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo’ of public bailout. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind.

Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo’s Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company’s stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon.

And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.

Do I believe the banks called Justice and said, “Take him down today!” Naw, that’s not how the system works. But the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party. Headlines in the financial press – one was “Wall Street Declares War on Spitzer” - made clear to Bush’s enforcers at Justice who their number one target should be. And it wasn’t Bin Laden.

And Hunter S. Thompson? He described where we are now in his slogan "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." That's where we are now.

A novel with Spitzer as the main character?

Like most avid readers of fiction, I have dreams of writing a novel. So I am always on the lookout for advice on what makes a novel interesting. The answer, as I normally am told, is character. But what is it that makes a character in a novel interesting?

Richard Russo, using Eliot Spitzer as an example, explains. It's complexity of character.

My fictional Eliot would be complex, would contain paradoxes. He would not be a hypocrite. My Eliot would believe with his whole heart in his crusades against the corrupt and the powerful and the privileged, even as he worked studiously to undermine his legacy. Fiction can accommodate such paradoxes, provided they're explained.

But I don't mean to jigger the facts; fictive Eliot will do exactly what the real Eliot has done, only my guy almost never imagines getting caught. And when he does occasionally consider the possibility, he trusts that there will be ample warning that disaster is imminent. For the most part, things in his life have happened slowly, especially the good things, and he trusts that bad things will evolve similarly. He will swerve at the last moment. The possibility of a head-on collision, swift and devastating, simply never occurs to him.

Even worse, though he knows that the world doesn't work this way, he convinces himself that if he's caught, people will treat him fairly. Sure, he has shamed himself, but he's done a lot of good things, too, and people will remember that. He has always employed a kind of moral arithmetic, and he'll expect that same math to be applied to him -- all his virtues set up on one side of the ledger, his one weakness on the other. People will understand that he's mostly good. By the time my Eliot realizes that he's wrong about all this, it's too late. The damage is done. He has betrayed his wife, his children, his best self, and it's all his fault.

Okay, that's my thumbnail fictional Eliot; a little thin, and maybe I like him too much. Not giving his nasty, righteous streak enough play. It's possible I'm giving him more credit than God would, but then God has the advantage of knowing what Eliot and I are still trying to figure out. I'll learn more as I write, but there are other characters to consider.

First, Eliot's wife -- and here I sense a mystery even deeper than the mystery of Eliot himself. Why does she stand there beside him at the podium when he confesses? Why do they all? I feel uniquely unqualified to look inside her heart, to ferret out her motives. I make a list of what I know (not much) and what I suspect (not much more) and wonder whether imagination will fill in all those blanks. I'm relatively certain of one thing: It's not this woman's fault. I won't portray her as frigid or otherwise complicit in what has transpired. She hasn't driven Eliot to any of this. I don't believe in perfection, but I've decided for the time being that she's been a good wife, a good mother.

What I know about marriage is that identities over time tend to merge. Eliot's wife was once her own person, but down the years she's lost some of that individuality, surrendered it willingly, never suspecting she might have further use for it. If she's not this man's wife, then who is she? Worse, can she abandon her husband without implying that her daughters should do the same to their father? And what was that promise that she made? For better or for worse? Did she mean that or just say it? How could it be that she was able to imagine the better so vividly, the worse not at all? Was that his fault for leaving so few clues, or hers for ignoring the few there were? The facts of her situation are simple and clear. Why aren't her emotions? Why won't they stand still so she can examine them?

And what of those daughters? This is the hardest part for my Eliot. What really tears him apart is that when the news breaks, these girls are going to have to go to school. He sees them in his mind's eye now and can think of little else. Sees them alone and isolated, all the other kids talking about them, growing silent when his girls walk into the room. This won't go on forever, but to them it will seem like forever. Eliot also fears that he's done them long-term damage. Some of it can be repaired. They're good, smart girls, and they won't grow up hating all men. But their innocence has fled; they look at him now like a man wearing a partially removed disguise. Never again will they take anything on faith. They will be cautious in the living of their lives, taking nothing at face value. They'll brace for impact when there's no reason. He could have spared them all this, yet managed not to.

The novel's getting pretty dark, and that worries me. Time for a little comic relief. Real-life Eliot has few friends, we're told, the natural result of what some people like to call his arrogance, though my Eliot has never thought of it in those terms until now. Arrogant? He'd simply tried to put criminals in jail where they belonged. Wasn't that his job? Is that any reason he should be friendless now? So I'll give my Eliot one friend, someone to help him put what he's done into perspective. I'll give this friend some of my own cynical humor. Ah, what the hell, I'll give him my name. Call him Rick. I can change that later with a keystroke.

Before everything begins to unravel, Eliot confides to Rick that he's made a mess of things, betrayed everyone he loves, that he isn't even sure who he is anymore. But Rick will tell him not to be melodramatic. It's true that he's made mistakes, big ones, Rick explains, but they aren't what Eliot thinks they are. Rick admits he's outraged that Eliot has spent $80,000 on prostitutes, because it shouldn't cost that much to get a little action in America. It's like one of those $500 Pentagon hammers. Downright wasteful. And why order a hammer from New Jersey and pay the shipping? There are perfectly good hammers in Washington -- it's a damned city of hammers, when you think about it. Where on earth did Eliot get the idea that New Jersey hammers were superior? All he wanted to do was nail something, right?

Don't joke, Eliot tells Rick. This isn't funny; he could go to jail. But to Rick's way of thinking, that's the biggest joke of all. Your average CEO can claim millions in salary and stock options in the same year his company is going down the tubes, and it's all perfectly legal. You want to know what you're really guilty of, Eliot? Cluelessness. You didn't forget who you are, you forgot where you are. This is America, pal, where you can lead the nation into war on false pretenses and be rewarded with a second term in office, but where illicit sex is and has always been an impeachable offense. (Note to self: A little of this Rick character goes a long way.)

How will my Eliot's story end? Do I wait for real-life events to unfold or make something up? What kind of story will it be? A tragedy? Maybe, but somehow I don't think so.

My Eliot's no Gatsby, and there's no reason he should wind up floating face-down in the pool. What he's really done is blown it. He's had a great opportunity, and he's blown it. There will be both private and public consequences. He will be punished, and he will punish himself. He will survive. So will his family. People do. What is the basis for such breezy optimism? Well, for one, there's historical precedent. Hillary Clinton wasn't done in by her knucklehead husband. I wouldn't pretend to know what's in her heart, but she's clearly functioning. And Chelsea, God love her, seems to have weathered the effects of her old man's late-onset adolescence.

I'm not going to write a novel based on Spitzer, and I'll probably never finish either of the two novels I have played with for years. But this analysis tells me why Spitzer's story on the news interests me as much as it does, and why I find the news reports so unsatisfying. The reporters keep trying to simplify Spitzer's character so that is can be explained in a single sentence.

I guess they are too busy just trying to report the car wreck on I-95 or the IED in Iraq to bother with describing a complex character. Those reporters will never finish their novels or get them published, either. Too much fact, explanations that are too simple. Even when such an excellent example of a complex, paradoxical character as Elliot Spitzer is simply handed to them on a plate with a bow wrapped around him.

---

Thanks to the inimitable Laura Rozen of War & Piece who directed me to this excellent report in the Washington Post. But for her I would have missed it.

More details on Spitzer

If either the prurience or the politics of Elliot Spitzer's dalliance with extremely high priced hookers has gotten your attention, then Jeralyn Merrit of Talkleft has collected a great deal of information and since she is a defense attorney, she also explains the relevance and apparent legal strategies.

Laura Rozen (War & Piece) also reports more information, this focusing especially on the details of the prostitution organization, the Emperors Club VIP. I was surprised at the prices the Emperors Club charges. This is from the New York Post (referenced by Rozen)

Two other women, Tanya Hollander, 36, a nutritionist from upstate Rhineback, and Temeka Rachelle Lewis, 32, of Brooklyn, face similar charges for handling the day-to-day business.

For several years, wealthy men could go online and pick through mini-biographies of the women. Their bodies were pictured but their faces obscured.

"Raquel," who worked in New York and LA, was described as "an avid writer, actress and journalist."

Men paid $1,100 to $5,500 an hour or could get discounted day or multiple-day rates of $25,000 to $50,000. American Express and wire transfers were accepted.

Sometimes the women took imprints of the men's credit cards on the spot and faxed them back to the pimping couple.

The operation started to unravel after one of the hookers agreed to become a confidential source for the FBI in late 2006.

If you wondered where those tax cuts that Bush and Cheney rammed through for their wealthy supporters, this is what those tax cuts were buying. Had to be. No one else except the recipients of those tax cuts could afford those prices.

Somehow this seems to me to be a real justification for a sharply progressive income tax on both investment and wage income, along with hefty inheritance taxes. Paying for sex is not either socially or economically valuable, and should be discouraged.

Elliot Spitzer; Prostitutes; Why is the DoJ involved?

OK. We all know that sex sells media advertising, and it changes votes for politicians. So when Elliot Spitzer, Mr. Clean who made his reputation as an Attorney General going after crooked Wall Street financiers and prostitution rings gets caught hiring a high end prostitute, we can expect a great deal of hullabaloo.

But that was yesterday. Now, today, is time for some questions about how his actions were exposed (leaked?) and why the Department of Justice Public Integrity Unit was after him for what is a state crime a lot less serious than the corruption that sent Congressmen Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Bob Ney to prison.

Those two were both taking bribes and gave government favors for those bribes. That's what the Public Integrity Unit investigates. Where is it in the Spitzer case? There is no allegation that the independently wealthy Spitzer used government money for his recreational activities, nor is that any allegation that he provided favors to anyone. What he did was hypocritically hire a prostitute or a series of prostitutes. As far as I know, America does not use the government to enforce morality or penalize hypocrisy. What DOES happen in the U.S. is that the DoJ under Bush investigates Democrats with the intent to destroy them politically, while protecting Republicans like Rep. Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle.

Is this another case of the Republicans using the Department of Justice to destroy a successful Democratic politician like they did Alabama Governor Don Seigelman?

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake asks some questions that really need to be answered here.

1. Why would the bank tell the IRS and not Spitzer himself if there was a suspicious transfer? Spitzer is a longtime client, a rich guy and the governor. We're talking thousands of dollars here, not millions. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that they spotted a "suspicious transfer" made by the governor, and that this is how things began. It's possible it was just ordinary paperwork the bank had to file with the government whenever some particular flag was raised, but if that's the case, why did the DoJ go to DefCon 3?
2. What is a USA doing prosecuting a prostitution case? This isn't normally what the feds spend their time with.
3. Mike Garcia is a Chertoff crony. Sources familiar with the investigation say that he sent a prosecution memo to DC two months ago asking for authority to indict a public figure (Spitzer). Which means they had their case made long before the wire tap of February 13. Why did they then include this line from that conversation in the complaint?

   LEWIS continued that from what she had been told "he" (believed to be a reference to Client-9) "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe -- you know -- I mean that...very basic things...."Kristen" responded: "I have a way of dealing with that...I'd be like listen dude, you really want the sex?...You know what I mean."

   This salacious detail does not seem like it's necessary to make their case, and appears to be added for no other purpose than to destroy Spitzer's career.

4. How did Spitzer's name get leaked to the media, and who did it? Didn't happen to Dave Vitter.
5. Why did Mike Bloomberg suddenly start talking about running for governor recently? And why did he give $500,000 to Joe Bruno? He's good buddies with Mike Mukasey. What did he know and how did he know it?
6. The Mann Act? Are you kidding?
7. Spitzer's been in the line of fire of the GOP hit squad for a while. Roger Stone, Roger Stone, Roger Stone.

There are all kinds of things about this that just don't pass the smell test.

This isn't a totally fraudulent federal prosecution for political purposes like the one Wisconsin U.S. ATtorney rammed through in oder to get of the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired (see:

• Wisconsin US attorney rammed through fake corruption case of Democrat before last Governor's election.,
• US Atty Biscupic (Wisc) saved his job by prosecuting Georgia Thompson and


• US attorney Biscupic (Eastern Wi.) again reversed by Appeals Court - can't convict for no crime.

) but it is awfully close. There is no federal crime here. Not even an allegation of one that could be prosecuted effectively. There is clearly no political corruption, which is what the DoJ Public Integrity Unit is designed to investigate and prosecute - ans which they have failed to do in the cases of Rep. John Doolittle and William Jefferson.

Elliot Spitzer does appear to have pulled off a real political screw-up, but a crime? It's not one the DoJ's Public Integrity Unit was set up to investigate or prosecute. Given the history of the Justice Department as a tool of political assassination for the Bush administration and the Republican Party, this Spitzer situation is highly suspicious.

Once again the Bush administration is using public money and resources to maintain their power. I'd watch for Bloomberg to run for NY Governor as a Republican next election myself. This case stinks to high heaven of Republican corruption. It's what they do.