I guess some old fogey of a tax payer representative (occasionally our own government) might assume that paying prostitutes on a government contract is not a legitimate business expense. In another world, someone caught doing exactly that would be embarrassed and throw himself on the mercy of the court.

Not these days. The lawyer for the military contractor David H. Brooks argued in court that his client, who spent thousands of our money on prostitutes for his employees, had spent these monies appropriately because, as his lawyer put it, "Mr. Brooks thought such services could motivate his employees and make them more productive."

Mr. Brooks and his lawyer show an astounding amount of chutzpah. I don't disagree with the facts: sex is tension reducing, calming, perhaps even good for overall performance especially in high anxiety circumstances. With this in mind, Mr. Brooks could have flown in wives and girlfriends for regular conjugal visits. But maybe Mr. Brooks was more price-conscious than that and wanted to make sure that he could get a cheap fix for his workers—and make them forgive les soothing aspects of their jobs. Mr, Brooks, like many men, considered prostitutes such a commodity that he probably listed them in his business accounts with the paper supplies and other mundane daily products. And I am guessing he was pleased that, given the conditions, he could get them at ground-level prices.

I find this a sad and stupid situation. Sad, that prostitutes are not seen as people—but rather as a utility for stressed out workers. And shocked again when government funds are used in ways no tax payer would ever agree was what they had intended when they tithed to help their government exist for the good of the people.