Saturday, November 10, 2012


The man is, after all, a human being.

When a man and a woman are in constant contact with each other, chemistry often takes over. Especially if one of them is exceptionally physically attractive. The human animal is in us all. The sex drive was born with Adam. Amazingly, adultery, in many states, is still a crime, though criminal prosecutions are rare.

Adultery is and should remain grounds for divorce--but without being a crime. It is a clear violation of the contractual obligation between a married couple and rather obvious evidence of a loss of intimacy and fidelity. It, however, occurs too frequently in our society to be swept under the rug of  non-recognition. It is a primal instinct but, inconsistently, carries with it the stigma of the Scarlet Letter. Its frequency brings into play its allure and consequences.

My personal belief is that if you are in love with your spouse, you should remain faithful regardless of the temptations that will surely come your way.

During my 42 years of marriage, trying criminal cases nationwide, many opportunities presented themselves, but I, almost fanatically and religiously, never cheated on my wife. Never. Not even a kiss, a flirtation of any kind--I indulged in none of that, for I strictly adhered to the loyalty of fidelity. I deemed it to be the most important foundation of my marriage, a violation of which, by either partner, would forever and irreparably shatter the union. This was a ground rule in which I was emotionally vested--no exceptions allowed. It was an obsession with me.

But now, looking back, I realize that, although I was not wrong, I was very, very naive. Still am.

When two people find themselves in almost daily contact with each other, it frequently happens that a physical attraction evolves. The question thus posed is do you give into this desire, even once?

I now understand that a person can indulge in extramarital sex and simply walk away from it without any pains of conscience. I can't but others can.

Others find themselves so infatuated with the fire of new sex, the intoxocation with the ilicity of it, that they participate in an affair, as opposed to a one-night-stand (for fidelity purposes, I make no distinction). This may involve the consideration of divorce and remarriage. Blame it on a desire for what was once but no longer is, or the actual blooming of true love, or what ever---but it is a very serious matter with much potential for emotional collateral damage.

 I am not that type of person. Even though I might accept the fact that my spouse may have erred in this regard, without the involvment of love and unaccompanied by any lessoning of love for me--the marriage, for me, is over. Kaput. And all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. But again, that's who I am. I do not impose this personal standard of conduct on others, in a judgemental way. To each his own, for I readilly admit to being obsessive-compulsive in this regard. I'll stay with my own set of rules, thank you very much, yet my astonishment at those who can indulge, walk away and never look back will never diminish. I can understand their outlook on all of this---but it ain't for me. My spouse cheats just one time, with no romance or love involved, and it's divorce time. I'm just not built thst way.

Which brings us back to General Petraeus. He has resigned as head of the CIA because of an extramarital affair he had with his biographer. She is a strikingly beatiful and sexy woman. It is not difficult to understand his attraction to her in the circumstance of long hours working together. His immediate physical appearance does not, at first glance, match hers, but power is an aphrodesiac and he is a most powerful man. It is not difficult to explain the how and why of the mutual attraction.

The General, gallantly, did not name his paramour, although the press revealed her identity, almost instantaneously. He said that he loved his wife of 37 years, and I'm sure he does. Whether he is in love with her is another question altogether.

He misstepped and is accepting the consequences. His infidelity should, in no way, tarnish his iconic status as a hero and patriot. He has not become "disgraced". His type of discretion is too common. It transcends all walks of life. Me and my fanaticism does not, I suggest, a majority view make.

The media shall be inundated with all sorts of conspiracy and covert theories supposedly underlining the "real" circumstances attending the General's resignation. Don't buy it.

The bottom line: he became infatuated with a very attractive woman and succombed. He is paying the price.

The price does not embrace his heroic service to his country. We should have an army of Petraeuses.

Lay off the guy.

If I can, my puritanical views notwithstanding, so can you

All the same, if I were married to the him, I'd walk away and burn the bridge.

But, that's just me.

At least I practice what I preach, at the cost perhaps, of being a romantic fool.


It was Romney's for the taking but he blew it. Obama's weak spot was the economy. He could not achieve an upturn because the Big Boys wouldn't let him. I'm talking about the movers and shakers who control the money flow and cause stock market fluctuations within a 24 hour period. They sat on their cash (except for political shadowed donations) and froze the economy, the job seekers be damned. If Romney had won, the market would have spiked and euphoria would have permeated public opinion. And that would have been a good thing. So, why did Romney lose?

Harken back to 2011, when Obama and Speaker John Boehner attempted to effectuate a grand bargain which would alleviate the debt ceiling crisis and avoid plummeting over the fiscal cliff. Many Democrats were furious with the President, alleging that he had given away too much. Notwithstanding     the failure to close the deal, Obama demonstrated that he is not, by any means, an ultra liberal. He is, first and foremost, a pragmatist. He "gets" the big picture and is prepared to embrace the predicate of politics, to wit, the necessity to compromise. This was an anathema to the radical right wing of the Republican party, a lunatic fringe calling itself the Tea Party.

The notion of reason was scorned and abandoned. These true believers were willing to let the country sink rather than compromise on anything. They were and are the most unreasonable of men. They fashion themselves as patriots but are, instead, lunatics. But, they controlled the House of Representatives and, clinging to their self-annointed mandate, wouldn't yield an inch.

They closely monitored the Republican nomination process and were ready to crucify any candidate who swerved off their course. Romney is not one of them, but was afraid to take any position which might cause alienation. So, he embraced their principles, secured their backing and won the nomination. The general campaign was, however, a different scenario.

Romney, correctly realizing that Tea Party tenets did not represent the electorate majority, held himself out to be a moderate Republican. But he was trapped by his Tea Party utterances during the nomination fight. Inconsistencies sprang up everywhere, providing the Democrats with a plethora of destructive ammunition. Romney responded by "modifying" his stances, effectuating the indelible brand of "flip-flopper."

Further, his positions on womens' rights turned them into ferocious adversaries. His immigration policies cost him the Hispanic and Latino vote. His failure to release more than 2 years of tax returns fed the notion that he was an arrogant rich/fat cat completely out of touch with the middle class. This list of missteps is endless. Blame poor advice or personal misjudgment, he turned off the majority of American voters. This type of political blundering does not bode well for an aspiring President.

Romney is not a demon. He is a good man who failed to eradicate the notion that he is a danger to the middle class. Had he been elected, he would have allocated to the states the supervision and control of those affairs of life in which the federal government should be the primary mover. Save for the economy, he would have led us down some very precarious paths.

When Obama uses the tools of compromise and reason to reach legislative agreements with Republicans--and he will--the economy will favorably respond, accordingly.

The super-rich lost but, worry not, they shall survive. Despite all the money at their disposal, they have presumably learned that elections can't be bought.

The seeds of the Romney failure were sown in Tea Party fields.

History will show Obama to have been a most able president.

The very near future will show that the better man won.

'Tis a good thing that has happened.

Romney is President of White Male America. He wooed them. He won them. And lost the election.

(for cp)