NationStates Jolt Archive

in the top five most corrupt states in the Union. Illinois didn't make the list. Does this surprise you.

http://news.aol.com/article/north-dakota-tops-state-corruption-list/274636?icid=200100397x1214683307x1200992154

As far as I'm concerned, Alaska is no surprise. Illinois is.

I do believe it was in North Dakota (maybe it was s. dakota??) that state officials (state troopers, that is) would take sober Lakota women to the drunk tanks and rape them. At least, that is what I remember from the book Lakota Woman.

I do believe it was in North Dakota (maybe it was s. dakota??) that state officials (state troopers, that is) would take sober Lakota women to the drunk tanks and rape them. At least, that is what I remember from the book Lakota Woman.

When did the events take place or were supposed to have taken place, if its fictional?

looking at their 'qualifiers', the list isn't as complete as I'd like it.
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.

Wow. Alaska is on there. Im shocked. I thought Palin was a reformer?!?

No, Palin is bimbo.

No, Palin is bimbo.

*braces for the cries of sexism*


Anyway, I was being sarcastic.

*braces for the cries of sexism*


Anyway, I was being sarcastic.

I'm sorry I didn't make it clear that I knew that. No shit sherlock.

Only pre-Obama red states made the list. Just putting that out there for discussion.

Only pre-Obama red states made the list. Just putting that out there for discussion.

Nice try.

When did the events take place or were supposed to have taken place, if its fictional?

The events she described were back in the 70s. I hardly doubt that much has changed in that part of the US since then.

aahhh its a per-capita kinda thing.

so if the governors of 2 states engage in the same shit, the gov of the smaller state is more corrupt.

Palin hasn't purged all corruption from the state? Shocking I tell you, shocking. The only solution is to kick all the Democrats out of Alaska!

aahhh its a per-capita kinda thing.

so if the governors of 2 states engage in the same shit, the gov of the smaller state is more corrupt.
It is also based upon convictions. So if the corruption is sufficiently systemic that the offenders are insulated from successful prosecution (eg Illionois), then there is no corruption by the standards of the survey.

It is also based upon convictions. So if the corruption is sufficiently systemic that the offenders are insulated from successful prosecution (eg Illionois), then there is no corruption by the standards of the survey.

it's not just convictions but cases not handled by State Law Enforcement. so one state that had one Federal Convictions and 16 State Convictions in their State Level Government would be more less corrupt than a state that had Two Federal Convictions and no State Convictions in their Government.

When did the events take place or were supposed to have taken place, if its fictional?

the 70's really only source is Mary Crow Dog author of lakota women.
there are several issues with it. namely the reservation in question was not near an interstate/other major highway and so the region was devoid of state troopers. Few other facts point to exaggeration on her part. But hey what do you expect from a woman who names her daughter loser.

A joke of mine not that long ago:

Q: Sarah Palin, Ted Stevens, and Don Young are in a car. Who's driving?
A: The cop.

Theres convinctions because said states are actually going after their corrupt officials. States with more corrupt officials who aren't being arrested for corruption aren't even being counted...

Theres convinctions because said states are actually going after their corrupt officials. States with more corrupt officials who aren't being arrested for corruption aren't even being counted...

So therefore, those states with less corruption charges and convictions are more corrupt! How insidious.

I for one always find innocence to be inherently suspicious as well.

So therefore, those states with less corruption charges and convictions are more corrupt! How insidious.

I for one always find innocence to be inherently suspicious as well.
I'm saying that their metric is a horrible way to count something like this.

States that make an effort to clean up the state government will be found more corrupt than they would be if they just left it alone.

Theres convinctions because said states are actually going after their corrupt officials. States with more corrupt officials who aren't being arrested for corruption aren't even being counted...

Yes, the federal government is deliberately targeting the least corrupt states and ignoring the really corrupt ones. Just to mess with the statistics. :rolleyes:

I'm saying that their metric is a horrible way to count something like this.

States that make an effort to clean up the state government will be found more corrupt than they would be if they just left it alone.Riight. And it's a good thing when murder rates go up because that means more people are willing to report the crime.

Palin hasn't purged all corruption from the state? Shocking I tell you, shocking. The only solution is to kick all the Democrats out of Alaska!

Why spare them the job? (Most of the people busted during Palin's tenure were Republicans-the Murkowsky machine is ALL Republicans.)

Note also: their criteria is based on...CONVICTIONS!!

Democrats don't prosecute Democrats, so it's not a surprise that Alaska's going to score higher than a one-party state like Illinois.

Palin hasn't purged all corruption from the state? Shocking I tell you, shocking. The only solution is to kick all the Democrats out of Alaska!

I thought the only solution was to have Alaska secede from the Union.

Note also: their criteria is based on...CONVICTIONS!!

Democrats don't prosecute Democrats, so it's not a surprise that Alaska's going to score higher than a one-party state like Illinois.

You are likely the first person ever to accuse Bush's DOJ of favoring Democrats. If there's anything that's an indication that someone's corrupt, it's the FBI catching them and getting them convicted.

What skews the survey's results is that it's on a per-capita basis. There are so few people in Alaska that 1 out of 5 of them is a corrupt politician.

in the top five most corrupt states in the Union. Illinois didn't make the list. Does this surprise you.


"Come to Alaska! Now officially certified as the Italy of North America!"
;)

I thought the only solution was to have Alaska secede from the Union.

Or to sell it back to Russia.

You are likely the first person ever to accuse Bush's DOJ of favoring Democrats. If there's anything that's an indicator of corruption, it's the FBI catching them and getting them convicted.

What skews the survey's results is that it's on a per-capita basis. There are so few people in Alaska that 1 out of 5 of them is a corrupt politician.

Huh...interesting take. I "was" referring to the simple, but (based on past events, accurate) following (and you can back-check it over the last thirty years).

All Democrats will prosecute Republicans for corruption (if it's possible to do so)
All Republicans will go after Dems for the same, (if possible)
Some Republicans will prosecute Republicans for corruption (see: Sarah Palin's career in Alaska as one example)

But...


NO DEMOCRAT WILL EVER PROSECUTE ANOTHER DEMOCRAT FOR CORRUPTION (regardless of evidence, public nature of the crime, or damage done).

Democrats simply don't prosecute members of their own party-Rangel is safe as long as his party holds the majority and necessary chair in the Ethics committee-unlike several Republicans who've been removed since '94 for the mere appearance of Corruption (Newt Gingrich, for instance, Tom Delay as another example).

Ergo, if prosecution does not proceed expeditiously, Blago is going to see his charges dropped by an Obama Justice Department and FBI. He will NOT face trial if the trial doesn't happen in the next two months.

Pretty sure this measure is skewed toward less populated states. I can't prove this at the moment, but I would bet that states with smaller populations simply have more government officials per 100,000 citizens, and therefore more corruption convictions.

Huh...interesting take. I "was" referring to the simple, but (based on past events, accurate) following (and you can back-check it over the last thirty years).

All Democrats will prosecute Republicans for corruption (if it's possible to do so)
All Republicans will go after Dems for the same, (if possible)
Some Republicans will prosecute Republicans for corruption (see: Sarah Palin's career in Alaska as one example)

But...


NO DEMOCRAT WILL EVER PROSECUTE ANOTHER DEMOCRAT FOR CORRUPTION (regardless of evidence, public nature of the crime, or damage done).

Democrats simply don't prosecute members of their own party-Rangel is safe as long as his party holds the majority and necessary chair in the Ethics committee-unlike several Republicans who've been removed since '94 for the mere appearance of Corruption (Newt Gingrich, for instance, Tom Delay as another example).I'm a bit suspicious of these claims. For one thing, it assumes the complete politicization of what is supposed to be an apolitical system. It suggests that the two political parties are inherently different in their level of corruption and their response to it. And it's based on a few anecdotes, all of which I think you're misrepresenting.

Newt Gingrich: Had a complaint filed against him by the House Democratic Whip and sanctioned for ethics violations. Never actually prosecuted, and thus irrelevant to your case.

Tom Delay: Prosecuted by a Democratic D.A. and protested that he was being targeted for political reasons.

Sarah Palin: Not actually involved in federal prosecution. I suppose your point is that she's made a point of saying she wants to clean up the Alaska GOP. But she was certainly close to people like Bill Allen and Ted Stevens, and I see no evidence that she got Justice to prosecute Republicans.

Rangel: Subject of an ongoing investigation by House Ethics Committee. Your speculation about what will happen is immaterial. Whether he keeps Ways and Means is a matter of politics, not the Justice System.

There's also evidence that Bush's DOJ has disproportionately targeted Democrats. (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002420.php)

Ergo, if prosecution does not proceed expeditiously, Blago is going to see his charges dropped by an Obama Justice Department and FBI. He will NOT face trial if the trial doesn't happen in the next two months.Then your hypothesis may get put to the test. Until it happens, I see no reason to believe that the Obama administration will illegally pervert the Justice system in such an unprecedented manner, by interfering with ongoing prosecution or whatever you think he will do.

Flawed survey is flawed.

Caribou Barbie's state, corrupt?! Heavens, impossible. It has a hickey mom for a governor. How is that even possible?!

:rolleyes:

Ergo, if prosecution does not proceed expeditiously, Blago is going to see his charges dropped by an Obama Justice Department and FBI. He will NOT face trial if the trial doesn't happen in the next two months.

So, when Blago hangs (metaphorically), because trust me, he will, will you admit you were pulling this out of your ass?

... It has a hickey mom for a governor....

:D Palin with love bites?

So, when Blago hangs (metaphorically), because trust me, he will, will you admit you were pulling this out of your ass?

yes. because I don't believe he will. The worst he'll face, is a plea-bargain with a small fine, ala Barney Frank's case.

Palin hasn't purged all corruption from the state? Shocking I tell you, shocking. The only solution is to kick all the Democrats out of Alaska!

I didn't know there were any.

Caribou Barbie's state, corrupt?! Heavens, impossible. It has a hickey mom for a governor. How is that even possible?!

:rolleyes:

Google "Murkowski Corruption". Alaska's been under corrupt management longer than many posters around here have been alive.

yes. because I don't believe he will. The worst he'll face, is a plea-bargain with a small fine, ala Barney Frank's case.

WTF are you talking about? IIRC Barney Frank was never charged with anything -- let alone made a plea bargain.

And to compare the reprimand of Barney Frank for the Gobie affair with the charges against Gov. Blagojevich is nothing other than partisan absurdity.

yes. because I don't believe he will. The worst he'll face, is a plea-bargain with a small fine, ala Barney Frank's case.

If there is a plea bargin, it will be to avoid him appointing himself to the senate seat. Not becaus Democrats dont go after democrats.

If there is a plea bargin, it will be to avoid him appointing himself to the senate seat. Not becaus Democrats dont go after democrats.

once safely in that seat, he's still not going to be gone after by democrats, KOL. Maybe a republican-if one that retains a spine can be located (good luck with that), but Dems don't go after Dems. EVER. Party Loyalty in these cases is absolute among Democrats.

but Dems don't go after Dems. EVER. Party Loyalty in these cases is absolute among Democrats.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. That might be because Dems dont tend to be as corrupt as Republicans?

once safely in that seat, he's still not going to be gone after by democrats, KOL. Maybe a republican-if one that retains a spine can be located (good luck with that), but Dems don't go after Dems. EVER. Party Loyalty in these cases is absolute among Democrats.

Um. Nevermind the widespread and compelling evidence that the Bush Administration has systematically supported overprosecution of Democrats and discouraged prosecution of Republicans, your assertion that "Dems don't go after Dems" is ludicrous.

Just off the top of my head, the Democrats forced out their own Speaker of the House Jim Wright in 1989.

Also the Texas Democrat prosecutor that indicted Tom DeLay was well-known for his prosecution of high-ranking Democrats.

Also, does the name James Traficant ring any bells?

:D Palin with love bites?

LOL! Sorry, I sinned grammatically. :D

yes. because I don't believe he will. The worst he'll face, is a plea-bargain with a small fine, ala Barney Frank's case.

do you think Ted Stevens will spend one day in jail?

Google "Murkowski Corruption". Alaska's been under corrupt management longer than many posters around here have been alive.

I think my sarcasm was lost on you, or it wasn't strong enough.

Or to sell it back to Russia.

Sell it back to Russia? Hell the Russians would probably pay us to keep Alaska at this point.

do you think Ted Stevens will spend one day in jail?

At this point? I'm hoping. Maybe we'll get REALLY lucky, and he can be Blago's cellmate and prison-bitch-call it a bipartisan effort.

once safely in that seat, he's still not going to be gone after by democrats, KOL. Maybe a republican-if one that retains a spine can be located (good luck with that), but Dems don't go after Dems. EVER. Party Loyalty in these cases is absolute among Democrats.

Sir, you are either willfully ignorant of politics, or have allowed your knee-jerk hatred for the other party to supplant your grasp on reality. Have you failed to notice that Dick Durbin and other Democrats have called for a special election, even thought it could mean a Republican gets the seat? Have you not noticed that Democrats are questioning the legitimacy of a Blago appointment, let alone the guy appointing himself? Can you find a single instance of a Democrat expressing support for Blagojevich? Do you think the party is so idiotic as to ignore the horrible image problems that backing Blago would create?

Your claims about "party loyalty" are not becoming more valid because you continue to repeat them with increasing emphasis. There's no way in hell that the Dems would let Blago get away with appointing himself. They would likely not let him into the Senate, let alone into their caucus.