While watching the segment, it is quite clear that a $200- an-hour prostitute will, in all probability, soon be a millionaire by publishing her so-called diary of information about the administration. It is just the matter now of which publisher gives Sherry Rowlands the highest offer.

It is also quite clear that the media is missing the most obvious scandal, if illicit sex can still be called scandalous. What situation may exist that the media has missed so far? Let's do a logical investigation.

First, how about the math? Mr. Morris visited the woman once a week at, one must assume, $200 per hour. Perhaps Mr. Morris stayed with the woman several hours each visit. That could be the case but isn't. Or, maybe he even got a very special deal from Rowlands.

The Star reported that they paid Rowlands more than the $12,000 she said she was paid by Morris during their year long relationship. Isn't it rather difficult to live on $12,000 in our nation's capitol? Plus, don't forget having to pay for the hotel room, or did she live there? Then, again, maybe she and the hotel had a special relationship.

Mr. Morris met Rowlands at the Jefferson Hotel just a few blocks from White House. It seems that a hotel close to the White House would be more expensive than, say, a night near The River Walk in San Antonio, Texas, where a room will cost right at $180 a night (1995 price).

If Morris met Rowlands there once a week for a year, then the hotel bill must have been close to $10,000, or did Rowlands, as alluded to above, have a special deal with the hotel?

Another clue is that Rowlands stated the reason she came forward was that she had worked as an "escort" for years and "wanted to get out of the business." Hm, don't think that she plans on making enough from the story to retire, do you?

She probably will, and from just one John. Makes one wonder if all that she has written in her diary is the truth, does it not? Sensationalism sells, not ho-hum sex (for the prostitute, anyway).

Rowlands had been in Washington for several years and, let's face it, she worked as a prostitute. It therefore glares out that Morris was not her only 'client'. Financially speaking, she had to have had several clients in order to support her lifestyle. Just the clothes she had to buy for functions that she worked had to have been fairly expensive, let alone basic living expenses which far exceed an income of $12,000 paid to her by Morris.

The real scandal may be found in answering this question - Just who were here other clients? Who were the men, and, and to avoid sexism, maybe women, who retained her services besides Morris?

It is logical to assume that she didn't stand on a street corner flagging down males in need of a prostitute's services. And, ordinary income people can't afford to pay $200 an hour for sex.

Therefore, it is safe to presume that Rowland's clients were people of higher than average incomes. Do any of you think, as the writer does, that Rowland's other clients might have been other officials in Washington? Afterall, prostitutes, the very successful, sophisticated type the writer has known (but never hired) became quite selective as to their clientel.

Last clue. Has Rowlands been arrested for prostitution and Morris as a John? Prostitution is illegal, isn't it?

But, then again, we are dealing with Washington and the lack of arrest or investigation into the woman's past seems to condone her activities. If this is true, then isn't it also logical that Washington, D.C. expects prostitution, that just maybe prostitution is deemed a very necessary service in the capitol?

This writer doesn't know but feels that it sure bears investigation. If the situation is not investigated, then we can presume that Washington does condone and overlook prostitution. Afterall, this isn't the first case that has been made public, is it?

If this is the case, then that service industry should be legalized every place. And, when you get right down to it - why not? Just treat it as a form of physical therapy (which it is).

Afterall, Ladies and Gentlemen, what is good for the goose is good for the gander (no pun intended).