Another Randy Old Goat Gets Caught

Well, I'm shocked, SHOCKED! You might think I'm appalled that New York Governor Spitzer allegedly met with a prostitute in a New York hotel. But, no. I'm shocked that we never cease to be surprised at this kind of behavior. And, I'm amused by the media's labeling it as "involvement in a prostitution ring." At this time (3:12 p.m.) all the media really knows is that Spitzer text-messaged (how stupid can you get?) his request for a meeting with a particular prostitute.

And, speaking of stupid, he did this knowing that all messages and phone calls, etc. were being intercepted by federal law enforcement agents. He didn't even use an alias, or code name! Typical, typical, typical.

I repeat, I'm not shocked that he "meets with prostitutes." What a delicate way to put it. Personally, I believe that prostitution should be legalized, the way it is in other countries. Wait, wait! Come back! I'll 'splain why. Just calm down.

Here's my reasoning. Generally speaking, men just don't have the same attitude toward sex that women seem to have. To them, it's satisfying a natural urge. Nothing to do, necessarily, with love. Prostitutes know all this. But, non-"professional" women, in general, want to at least LIKE, or at a minimum, know the last name of whoever they sleep with. In other words, we like romance, foreplay, conversation, SOMETHING to make us feel an emotional connection. This is why so many men are astonished to discover that the woman who so eagerly jumped into the rack with him Saturday night, is expecting a declaration of undying love on Sunday morning. A commitment, for heaven's sake.

Legalizing prostitution would make it easier for a lot of wives, too. Think about it. The Ladies of the Evening would be "regulated". By that I mean, they would enter "Prostitute" on their tax forms, etc., and would be required to be tested for any number of nasty diseases, which would protect their clients as well as their clients' wives.

Wives wouldn't feel obligated to divorce their husbands for cheating, because if the husband could legally go to a prostitute, it probably wouldn't be widely known and he probably wouldn't be as interested in his wife's friends or the women at work. So, wifey wouldn't get embarrassed in front of all their friends and families, which is really why they file for divorce, anyway.

Since men don't always equate sex with love, they are often heard to say they love their wives, even if they've just been caught with the baby-sitter. I knew one man who stated, with a straight face, "If my wife died tomorrow, I'd NEVER marry my mistress!" I took that to mean that he loved his wife, while his mistress was just a diversion, or something of that nature. He wouldn't have to have a "mistress" if he could just make a reservation at the local brothel. Thus, saving himself a lot of money that he could then spend on diamonds for his wife, the woman he loves.

So, let's just back off and see what happes to Eliot Spitzer. If all he did was pay a prostitute every now and then, that's one thing. I'll change my opinion if it turns out he was actually involved in the "prostitution ring". By that I mean, helping to run it or being paid to protect them, or something of that ilk.

Otherwise, he's just a randy guy, doing what comes naturally.

Those Damn Democrats

The Democrats don't ever do anything halfway, do they? If there's quicksand anywhere around, they'll find it and jump in. Bless 'em. It's feast or famine.

The media pundits seem surprised when they make much of the fact that women over Sixty are supporting Hillary Clinton. Well, duh. Of course. We women over Sixty are the ones who fought the good fight for women's rights. We have waited all these years for the Democrats to nominate a woman for the Presidency. The closest we have come, up to now, was Geraldine Ferraro, and we stood by and let her sleazy husband's activities shoot down her chance to become Vice-President.

So, now we have another worthy candidate, who also has a sleazy husband, but who has had the strength and determination to deflect all attempts to be tarred with the same brush he was. She has emerged as the strong, determined wife who stuck by her husband and didn't let him bring her down because she had her eye on her own prize - becoming the first female President of the United States.

She's not perfect, but we're philosophical about it. She may be our last chance to see a woman President in our lifetimes.

And, what do our fellow Democrats do? They bring in another candidate who also represents something we have waited a long time for. For all those years, while we fought for the rights of women, we were also fighting for the rights of people of color. We were captivated by Jessie Jackson and watched him light up the room everywhere he spoke. We celebrated the Civil Rights Movement with the same zeal that we gave to the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment).

Now, we have Barack Obama, a black man who has his own way of lighting up a room. A man we would all be proud to vote for. And, he's ahead. And, we would be satisfied with him as the candidate.

If it weren't for Hillary. So, we're pretty much split down the middle. Why, oh why, can't the Democrats do things one at a time? For all these years, we have hoped for a viable female candidate - OR - a viable black male/female candidate. Now that we have both at the same time, what's a good Liberal Democrat to do? We really can't have them both. It's hard to imagine that either of the candidates would accept the Vice-Presidency.

OK. The handwriting seems to be on the old wall. We'll shed a tear for Hillary (and our dreams) and go to the polls and vote enthusiastically for Obama.

And, we'll hope that there will still be time for us to see the first female President. Hmmmmm. I wonder if Caroline Kennedy has any political aspirations.