Monday, March 10, 2008


The Eliot Spitzer announcement and apology, while not necessarily surprising, appears to have confounded most of us, "I have acted in a way that violates my … sense of right and wrong." What wonderful timing. The sense of bewilderment comes as the overburdened tax payers, while looking for a break, also look to political, or corporate leaders, for guidance on doing the right thing. What do they find? A vacuous depression.

Having stimulated belief in visions of an end to corruption, Spitzer enjoyed a historic victory, riding a wave of hope into the Governor’s office. Now we have America shouting, “say it ain’t so, Joe,” all over again.

Why is it so difficult to find the practice of generally accepted ethical standards by those inoculated with influence and power? Does morally just behavior evaporate upon being conveyed some level of recognition, or is it simply lacking in a high percentage of human beings driven to succeed at any cost?

This is not a debate on the ethics or morals of prostitution. It is a question on the ethics impelling and encompassing hypocritical behavior contradictory to emphatic utterances professed loudly for the single purpose of winning high office.

It’s down to the ego. Mr. Spitzer’s ego blinded him, in my opinion. It blinded him from being able to see possibilities that his behavior could arouse either detection or suspicion. It blinded him to the fact that those who would seek revenge, might be able to reach him. It blinded him to the devastating impact it would have on his family. Even in his announcement, his ego blinded him to the very evident and visible evidence that his wife, Silda, should not be at the podium with him. She looked even more overwhelmed than we felt observing the scene. She was very likely not there because “she supported her husband.” Spitzer is not an ignorant man, yet he was and still appears to be blind to the consequences. At his core his insecurity has wiped clean all remnants of ethics . Once caught, of course, there is no end of apologies and contrite rationalizations. The ethics , nevertheless, are missing.

1 comment:

  1. Spitzer violated the law and should be treated as such. That said...

    The set-up is obvious. The Sting perfect! The hooker worked for one of the old firms he busted. The bank who busted him just happened to be following the law (in an ordinary routine)and just happened to be the bank he busted when he was a "good" guy.

    Now the hooker is a folk hero,offers of money and fame & no
    crime time. It is a big time resume maker. In fact none of the
    other hookers are being charged with anything. They will be the informers to make sure the charges stick. Pay back time!

    The other johns are now well-known to the government. I assume they were bigger fish than Spitzer - and can "afford" to keep their names out of this. Their financial institutions probably wouldn't want
    to divulge (and investigate) their
    financial activity. It's just tidier to arrest the ringleaders & satisfy the common man.

    When the media feeds us all
    this soap opera-syndicated news
    it makes stories such as the recent arrest of the Russian ( reputed world's largest arms dealer)working for Halliburton compliments of no-bid US government contracts seem unimportant or unrelated to the potential criminality of something a bit bigger than the Governor of New York.

    Then again, maybe media conglomerates feel no-bid contractor and Wall Street
    corruption stories might not be
    PC with their crowd.

    As far as the ordinary viewer,feed them cake. (Just for national security, of course) Give them Spitzer,Brittany, Anna Nicole and political campaign smear stories

    Repeat them continously so they are taken as fact and let everyone believe that everyone else wants nothing more. Isnt this how Gary
    Hart trumped Iran Contra?