Temple Prostitutes

First, our apologies to modern day sex workers of all genders – those who proffer their various bodily orifices and joints as sexual gratification devices, in exchange for pay. When we denounce “whores” and prostitutes, our intent is not to demean or debase those engaged in the sex trade. Compared to the “whores” and “prostitutes” we regularly denounce, sex workers are an entirely honorable lot.

Today, on Holy Saturday, a day sacred to Western Christians, sandwiched between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, what else can we discuss but Temple Prostitutes?

For those not well versed on Temple Prostitutes in the Biblical era there are many sources of information from which to learn. Temple Prostitutes were both male and female and they were certainly abundant. The books of Deuteronomy (23:17 – “None of the daughters of Israel may become temple prostitutes neither may anyone of the sons of Israel become a temple prostitute.”), Kings I (14:23, 24 “And they too kept building for themselves high places and sacred pillars and sacred poles upon every high hill and under every luxuriant tree. (24) And even the male temple prostitutes proved to be in the land they acted according to all the detestable things of the nations whom Jehovah had driven out from before the sons of Israel.” 15:12 “According he had the male temple prostitutes pass out of the land and removed all the dungy idols that his forefathers had made.” 22:46 “And the rest of the male temple prostitutes that had been left oven in the days of Asa his father he cleared out from the land.”), and Leviticus (19:29 “Do not profane your daughters by making her a prostitute in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals.”) are replete with anecdotes. As much as we would enjoy a thorough discussion of Biblical era Temple Prostitution, the practices and variations, and meanings, we won’t engage. We have modern day Temple Prostitutes to worry about.

Modern day Temple Prostitutes are well known afflictions to Hillary Clinton supporters.

Steve Clemons of the Washington Note discusses the modern day Temple Prostitute:

“There are good friendships between White House media and those they cover inside the White House — but they can’t be FRIENDS in the fullest sense. They are supposed to be rivals, wrestling over stories and the truth that is conveyed through the media to American citizens.

But an unhealthy pattern is developing in this White House — a trend that may very well have been a part of other presidencies as well — but what is happening today needs comment.

Some journalists seem to be putting their self interest above their responsibilities to the public as well as their employers.”

After some stroking of the Obama “communications” operatives, Clemons discovers “an unhealthy pattern is developing”. Clemons is playing dumb of course. “Developing” is the wrong declension. “Cemented” is the appropriate word. Clemons is also inaccurate in calling these creatures “journalists”. They are Temple Prostitutes.

“As Howard Kurtz and Glenn Greenwald have both commented, many White House correspondents and other top tier journalists want to write Obama books.

Anything with “Obama” on it is running at a huge premium in the book publication market.

But the kind of books that sell need “inside access” and this is something that the communications team at the White House doles out minimally, and increasingly, only when favors are part of the arrangement.

What I have learned after discussions over the last several days with several journalists who either have regular access to the White House or are part of the White House press corps is that there is a growing sense that access is traded for positive stories — or perhaps worse, an agreement that things learned will not be reported in the near term.”

They are Temple Prostitutes. Do not call them “journalists”.

“The White House is working hard to secure deals that yield fluffy, feel good commentary about the Obama White House. One American White House reporter used colorful terms to describe the arrangement. The reporter said, “They want ‘blow jobs’ first [in the press sense]. Then you have to be on good behavior for a bit or be willing to deal, and then you get access.”

“Axe” and “Gibbs” know who needs access to get their books pushed forward.

They know who will pay for play — and are taking notes on who has been naughty and nice in their reporting.”

Temple Prostitutes. Call them what they are.

“Edward Luce, Washington Bureau Chief of the Financial Times, who has been one of the few to resist the ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ offers from the White House has found himself in a dust-up with the White House for his recent article co-authored with Daniel Dombey, “US Foreign Policy: Waiting on a Sun King“.

Luce was given access to one senior official for the piece, but because Luce reported that National Security Adviser Jim Jones may be on his way out and that Obama’s national security team lacks a top tier strategic thinker — other than Obama himself perhaps — Luce has been pummeled by the White House who think he violated a quid pro quo deal to do a fluff story in exchange for access.”

Clemons writes some whiny nonsense about how the White House should provide access for the public good not political benefit. But Clemons does not write what he clearly knows to be true. Temple Prostitutes.

Howard Kurtz at least named some of the Temple Prostitutes:

“…Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, NBC’s Chuck Todd, MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe, The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and David Maraniss, the New York Times’ Jodi Kantor and two New Yorker writers — editor David Remnick and Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza. Time’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann, whose campaign chronicle “Game Change” became a huge bestseller, have just signed a deal with Penguin Press to chronicle the 2012 contest — for an advance reported to be about $5 million.[snip]

A White House official said Michelle Obama is granting no book interviews because it is difficult to pick and choose among authors who are seeking similar material. Left unspoken is that the first lady undoubtedly wants to write her own book when she leaves the White House.”

Greenwald approaches calling them what they are – Temple Prostitutes:

“Those oozing conflicts lead to things like this — a glowing New Yorker profile of Rahm Emanuel so sycophantic it made the skin crawl — followed up by an even more one-sided love letter to Larry Summers, both from the eager, wanna-be White House stenographer/author Ryan Lizza. It’s what causes Newsweek‘s Jonathan Alter to proclaim one day (when Obama favored it) that real health care reform “depends on whether Obama gets approval for a ‘public option’,” only to turn around less than two months later (once Obama said it was unnecessary) and proclaim that the Left is foolishly obsessing on the un-important public option. Eagerness to serve the White House: it’s also what leads the desperate-for-book-access Alter to publicly insist that criticisms of Commander-in-Chief Obama help The Terrorists. And it’s what leads Chuck Todd on a daily basis, in the form of “covering the White House” for NBC, to serve as an amplifying vessel and justifier for whatever the White House happens to be saying at any given moment, from Todd’s arguments against investigations of Bush officials to his disparaging of the public option.”

Greenwald gets dangerously close to Big Pink with this:

“Is it even remotely conceivable that this stable of access-desperate reporters would write negatively about the White House or the President, or conversely, refuse to do their bidding? Look at what Ryan Lizza writes to get the answer. They’re all vying for the lucrative position of unofficial royal court spokesman (which Bob Woodward occupied in the prior administration). How can one possibly purport to be a “watchdog” over the very political officials on whom one’s livelihood and hope for riches depend? This conflict between (a) a need for access and (b) adversarial journalism is already acute enough — perhaps even unavoidable — for those who report on a day-to-day basis on the White House and other officials. But to then purposely compound that conflict by putting yourself in such a dependent and needy position vis-a-vis White House aides (with these “behind-the-scenes” books) proves how inappropriate the word “journalist” is for them. They’re motivated by many things; journalism plainly isn’t one of them.”

They are not “journalists.” They are Temple Prostitutes.

Share