The Sacred and The Profane.

At one and the same time.

I watch David Letterman at the witching hour. I watch Charlie Rose for intellectual stimulus and Letterman for wit.

I have enjoyed others better in the past but among the current modern crop Letterman takes the cake. He is supremely irreverent. If he has any sacred cows, they are not obvious. .

I enjoyed him better after his son Harry was born. At fifty-eight, he discovered the joy of a child and being a father was a delight.

Harry is five now. Started school in Fall. His parents married then. His Dad said it was right to do it for Harry.

He's a comedian. He uses his mother, his partner and life all around him to spark a chuckle.

He is particularly creative with politicians.

He makes a fine living doing something he does well. Everyone should be so fortunate.

Letterman's real personal life is nobody's business. Until this week. News of an attempt to blackmail because he had sex with two women he worked with hit the circuit.

I thought, how silly is that?

The reaction of the media was predictable. They regurgitated the Clinton sex scandal and how Letterman milked it and still does for all it is worth.

It was suggested the women were exploited.

It resurrected a thought I had during the Clinton scandal:

Lewinsky was depicted as victim and Clinton the ogre.

No-one ever suggested the aging Clinton might have been the prey and youthful Lewinsky, the predator.

Why is that? Why do men always have to be " the power" ?

Evil landlord with the black twirled moustache and cape, fair maiden tied to the railway. monster machine fast approaching belching smoke, flames and burning cinders.

I watched a more pallid scene once. It was real.

I was standing behind a man of status in the community at an event, it was part of his responsibility to attend.

The wife of an employee came forward and stood beside him.

She reached for his hand. He pulled it away. She persisted and he finally folded his hands behind him to discourage her.

I've seen that and similar scenes repeated over the years.

I conclude men in positions of power are attractive to women.

The most unlikely paramours have trouble fighting them off.

I do not suggest either Clinton or Letterman were victims.

I doubt any man would think of making that his excuse.

Except of course for Adam in the Garden of Eden.

St Paul wasn't too fond of women either, come to think of it.

The question that titillates my fancy is why the media never seem to think of the possibility.

Should modern woman be offended ?