Wait, I'm Confused.

So, a low-level staffer of a national community organization in a low-income urban neighborhood was filmed giving advice to a woman about how she could continue to make a living as a prostitute (for which said staffer has already been canned) and that's supposed to be the most heinous news in weeks and the pretext for denying unrelated government grants to the organization. But meanwhile a Republican United States Senator who bought the services of a prostitute continues to proudly occupy his seat, and this gets only mild shrugs?

What's the principle here? Prostitution is only bad if you're poor? Supporting prostitutes is bad if you are a community service worker, but not if you are paying for their services in a free-market transaction? Government financial support will be immediately withdrawn in the case of the misbehavior of an employee of any local branch of a recipient of a government grant program, but government financial support will be maintained in the case of the misbehavior of someone who gets to vote on it? Rich Southern white men can be nice to prostitutes, but poor urban black women can't? It's confusing.

Is it simply the old familiar IOKIYAR principle? It's OK If You Are A Republican?

Or perhaps it's current corollary: NIOKIWCLITO: Nothing Is OK If We Can Link It To Obama, whether or not that linkage makes any real-world sense?

People who want me to have a cow about ACORN can get back to me as soon as David Vitter is gone. And then we'll start by talking about Rush Limbaugh and sex tourism.