molson_golden2002 Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 Mostly the Bush States http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-1...m?se=yahoorefer
IDBillzFan Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 Oh. This makes the whole Illinois thing so much better, I guess. What a !@#$ing maroon.
Chef Jim Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 Mostly the Bush States http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-1...m?se=yahoorefer Maybe because Non-Bush states (whatever those are) have turned a blinds eye to the corruption and are not prosecuting it.
Joe Miner Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 Mostly the Bush States http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-1...m?se=yahoorefer Now how's Obama gonna unite us if you keep being so divisive? You're gonna piss off the messiah with your divisive rhetoric, and then you'll be in trouble. We're all working on change here, and you keep pushing the divisive politics of the last 8 years. You should be ashamed.
molson_golden2002 Posted December 11, 2008 Author Posted December 11, 2008 Maybe because Non-Bush states (whatever those are) have turned a blinds eye to the corruption and are not prosecuting it. Oh Brother. Ya, and Joe the Sh**head really was going to open a business but Obama ruined his dreams
molson_golden2002 Posted December 11, 2008 Author Posted December 11, 2008 Now how's Obama gonna unite us if you keep being so divisive? You're gonna piss off the messiah with your divisive rhetoric, and then you'll be in trouble. We're all working on change here, and you keep pushing the divisive politics of the last 8 years. You should be ashamed. I'm sorry
finknottle Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Isn't the salient feature of corruption that you don't get get investigated, arrested and convicted for things that would make a politician blush in law-abiding states?
The Dean Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Maybe because Non-Bush states (whatever those are) have turned a blinds eye to the corruption and are not prosecuting it. So, that's what you're going with, here? Anyway, this article is based on FEDERAL convictions. Had it been based on state and local prosecution (and, perhaps included the number of indictments and not just convictions...there are issues with that, too, of course) the results may have been quite different. The analysis does not include corruption cases handled by state law enforcement and it considers only convictions. Corruption may run more rampant in some states but go undetected.
Chef Jim Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 So, that's what you're going with, here? Anyway, this article is based on FEDERAL convictions. Had it been based on state and local prosecution (and, perhaps included the number of indictments and not just convictions...there are issues with that, too, of course) the results may have been quite different. Yes, I'm pointing out the stupidity of the original post. If you actually think corruption stops with the people doing the prosecuting you pretty naive.
The Dean Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Yes, I'm pointing out the stupidity of the original post. If you actually think corruption stops with the people doing the prosecuting you pretty naive. I think the original post simply pointed to a typically shallow McPaper article (and graph!), and pointed out an obvious conclusion...with no analysis of it, whatsoever. There is probably some merit to the following: Don Morrison, executive director of the non-partisan North Dakota Center for the Public Good, said it may be that North Dakotans are better at rooting out corruption when it occurs. "Being a sparsely populated state, people know each other," he said. "We know our elected officials and so certainly to do what the governor of Illinois did is much more difficult here." But, what the article seems to ignore is that one case of corruption in a sparsely populated state has a far greater impact on this analysis, than it does in a densely populated state. Considering that, every state (no matter the population) has one Governor, and most cities have one Mayor (or city manager), the idea of counting corruption on a per-resident basis is fairly stupid, IMO.
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Wow... Washington DC has zero corruption.
cody Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Wow... Washington DC has zero corruption. Exactly, this list is completly backwards. It only identifies the States seeking to punish corruption.
The Dean Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Exactly, this list is completly backwards. It only identifies the States seeking to punish corruption. No, this is based on Federal cases.
BillsNYC Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 Now how's Obama gonna unite us if you keep being so divisive? You're gonna piss off the messiah with your divisive rhetoric, and then you'll be in trouble. We're all working on change here, and you keep pushing the divisive politics of the last 8 years. You should be ashamed. This map is BS...I think we all know how corrupt NY is and its not even dark blue. Some of the things I heard about Jimmy Griffin alone should have us a dark blue!
finknottle Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 Some of the things I heard about Jimmy Griffin alone should have us a dark blue! Or least least blushing a deep red.
The Dean Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 This map is BS...I think we all know how corrupt NY is and its not even dark blue. Some of the things I heard about Jimmy Griffin alone should have us a dark blue! The map is what it is. The colors represent the ratio of Federal convictions to the population.
Chef Jim Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 The map is what it is. The colors represent the ratio of Federal convictions to the population. Yes and it's only a Federal crime if you get caught and convicted. But I think we can all agree that the lack of convictions could well be attributed to the amount corruption in that particular state so the map is good for one thing...number of convictions which is meaningless when talking about corruption.
The Dean Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 Yes and it's only a Federal crime if you get caught and convicted. But I think we can all agree that the lack of convictions could well be attributed to the amount corruption in that particular state so the map is good for one thing...number of convictions which is meaningless when talking about corruption. I would say that this article, and the associated map, says very little about state-by-state corruption, in any real sense of the word. I would draw no conclusions from it.
Adam Posted December 14, 2008 Posted December 14, 2008 The map is what it is. The colors represent the ratio of Federal convictions to the population. It is NOT what it is!
Recommended Posts