I’ve been really good about one of my Lenten resolutions (not reading fiction), but really bad about the other (writing in here more). However, as it is, life often gets in the way of many of our academic pursuits.

At any rate, my not writing in here is not for a lack of things to write about. In fact, a lot of interesting things have been going on – two in particular I will touch on:

1. OMH scandals abound; and
2. Spitzer v. Bruno

I think the second, it’s safe to say, will be fresh for a while. The OMH bit, however, may fade off in a little while, so I will address that issue in this particular entry.

Some of you locals might have read last week about the OMH manager who embezzled over a million dollars from his own agency. The article pretty much covers what happened, and I’m sure that I can’t say any more on the subject itself other than that it is disgusting. This coupled with some insider info that I’d rather not divulge – well, let’s just say Hell Hath No Fury …

At any rate, that isn’t the purpose of my post. Rather, it is *how* this story was presented. You cannot tell from the link above, however in last Wednesday’s paper, this story was on A-1, but below the fold, hidden in the furthest right hand corner. Those of you who know anything about print media know that this is a surefire way to bury a story so no one sees it. Whether or not that was an overt intention I cannot say. However, it’s evident that the TU just didn’t see this scandal as *that* important.

$1.23 million? I’d say that’s pretty important. I’d say that money could go to a lot of things and do a lot of good.

And, yet, we made a huge deal out of Alan Hevesi, and how much did he “steal?” Oh, right – $82,000.

Not to say that stealing any amount of money is okay – it’s not. But why is Hevesi held to a difference standard than James Leggiero? Certainly, New York residents got an earful about how corrupt Hevesi was over “Chauffergate,” but most New Yorkers probably won’t even blink an eye over Leggiero’s use of taxpayer money. And, for the record, this money was used for lavish vacations, luxury vehicles, and an expensive house. Hevesi used his illicit funds for driving his sick wife around. Once again, I know this doesn’t make what Hevesi did right, I’m just trying to illustrate a point.

Just because Leggiero is “civil service protected” (well, I imagine, not for much longer) and somewhat of a “nobody” to most New Yorkers, and Hevesi was an elected official and a very public figure, this makes it okay to attack Hevesi and end his career, but let Leggiero slide?

I don’t care if Joe Nobody, the mail clerk in my office, steals money. I want to know about it, I want a big stink made over it.

It’s disgraceful that this is being ignored by the vast majority of people. If Chauffergate outraged the masses, why isn’t this?