Hard to be Humble? Sometimes, you learn more about a person than you really need to know. And television is often the culprit. Take, for example, CNN's Larry King talking to former Senator Bob Dole about the new impotence drug, viagra. The funny thing is, many commentators spent the 1996 election season referring to Mr. Dole as a stiff. How wrong they were. So now he, and wife Elizabeth, say "it's a great drug." Now, I certainly have nothing against older people having sex. I hope to be old someday myself, and I certainly don't want to give up one of the great pleasures in life just because of my age...but the conversation conjures images in my brain that I would rather not confront. Internal 8mm film of Bob and Liddy doin' the nasty is enough to make me rethink the whole subject. Walking in on a scene like that would make you want to go home and iron everything in sight. But, once I can erase those images from my still-throbbing (no pun intended) head, I say "more power to ya, Bob!" Unfortunately, the discussion does not end there. We as federal and state taxpayers, may be footing the bill for the less-fortunate to enjoy this same experience. In the past, I have been accused of being a "liberal." And I certainly support taxpayer-subsidized programs that allow people to eat, single mothers to get day care and job training (so they can work to get off the public dole, or improve their education to increase their own marketability), and birth control (which, in the long run, will mean fewer dependents on the system). But to pay for a drug so that those that can't afford it can have sex? Well, that may be taking this "pursuit of happiness" thing just a bit too far. What's the next step? We'll have people applying to Medicaid, saying they are too poor to get a date. And without satisfaction, they are at a dead-end in their happiness pursuit. So the state will have to "hook them up." It'll be all the rage. The "escort service" ads in the phone book will be changed to read: "Visa, Mastercard, AmEx and Medicaid accepted." A conversation in the subsidized housing development might sound like this. "So, Stan, how goes the job search?" "Not too well, Bob. Of course, I haven't really had much time this week. I've been involved in a serious pursuit of happiness." "Oh? Do tell." "Well, I was tryin' to hook up with Trixie, down at 5th and Main. Medicaid agreed to pay, but when we got to her room...well, I had some problems with my equipment. So I went to the doctor, and have spent the week in and out of his office and on the phone with the Medicaid people, and finally got them to spring for this new drug. Since then, I have been keepin' Trixie off the streets, and have been too tired to look for work." I mean, I can almost understand the argument, but I'm going to be pretty cheesed if my tax dollars are being spent to insure that someone gets laid more than I do. And what effect will the drug have on potency beyond just the concept of a stiffy? Will these men now be able to procreate as well? Are we going to have 200,000 men emulating Senator Strom Thurmond, and hooking up with 20 year old girls? The cost to the system could be staggering, both in new births and heart attacks. On the other hand, we might not have as many crotchety old people, if they were all gettin' a little action. We may see a rise in the number of men that want to go to old folks' homes, because it would be like one big swingers' motel. Once the bridge game gets boring, old Stan can stand up and say, "Well, ladies, look what I got." A little silly? Perhaps. But isn't the whole thought of state-subsidized erections? Then again, instead of viagra, Medicaid could buy them new suits instead. That way, as the old joke goes, if they were going to be impotent, they could look impotent...