These are the results:
1. Louisiana(7.67)
2. Mississippi (6.66)
3. Kentucky (5.18)
4. Alabama (4.76)
5. Ohio(4.69)
6. Illinois (4.68)
7. Pennsylvania (4.55)
8. Florida (4.47)
9. New Jersey (4.32)
10. New York (3.95)
11. Tennessee (3.68)
12. Virginia (3.64)
13. Oklahoma (2.96)
14. Connecticut (2.80)
15. Missouri (2.79)
16. Arkansas (2.74)
17. Massachusetts (2.66)
18. Texas (2.44)
19. Maryland (2.31)
20. Michigan (2.14)
21. Georgia (2.13)
22. Wisconsin (2.09)
23. California (2.07)
24. North Carolina (1.96)
25. Arizona (1.88)
26. Indiana (1.85)
27. South Carolina (1.74)
28. Nevada (1.72)
29. Colorado (1.56)
30. Washington (1.52)
31. Utah (1.4117)
32. Kansas (1.4109)
33. Minnesota (1.24)
34. Iowa (0.91)
35. Oregon (0.68).
> 5. Ohio(4.69)
> 23. California (2.07)
> 35. Oregon (0.68).
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16391_Page4.html
Thank you. It appears it is time for me to track back to Toledo to
look up some relatives.
/dps
Which matches the BCS ranking, too.
Glenn D.
>
> The publication Corporate Crime Reporter crunched Department of
> Justice statistics in 2007 to rank the 35 most populous states of the
> nation by corruption. The publication calculated a corruption rate,
> which it defined as the total number of public corruption convictions
> from 1997 to 2006 per 100,000 residents.
>
> These are the results:
>
> 1. Louisiana(7.67)
Yes!! As soon as I saw the subject line, I was rooting for Louisiana.
The good old boys did not disappoint. More than a point better than the
number 2 seed and almost 3 times the median.
--
Opus the Penguin
Facts are for wimps. Real usenet posters just say stuff that sounds
right. - Huey Callison
IL is #6.
And Alaska didn't even make the top 35, in spite of Mr. Stevens' best
efforts.
Jeannie
Stevens has been making efforts to increase the state's population, too?
--
Mark Brader | ...politicians are forever seeking a "level playing field":
Toronto | it lets them talk out of both sides of their mouth.
m...@vex.net | --Roland Hutchinson
> Jeannie writes:
>
> > And Alaska didn't even make the top 35, in spite of Mr. Stevens' best
> > efforts.
>
> Stevens has been making efforts to increase the state's population, too?
He's screwed the rest of the country, why not Alaska?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.
Aaah the BCS
From another newsgroup
BCS Declares Germany Winner of World War II
US Ranked 4th
After determining the Big-12 championship game participants, the BCS
computers were put to work on other major contests and today declared
Germany to be the winner of World War II.
"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with
the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into
conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against
the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of
work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our
computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."
Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS
commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and
Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by
head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single,
equally-weighted event."
Speaking from his throne in hell, Adolf Hitler said "Yes, we lost to
the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler
has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style
points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested. "Our contest
with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in
Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of
additional forces."
The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "
France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1
ranking, they only fell to #2."
Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the
Philippines.
These numbers are meaningless, perhaps even backwards. In the most corrupt
states, they're so corrupt the corruption investigators are corrupt! Thus
lower corruption rates!
Well, could be.
Jim Beaver
I'm wondering if the rankings left out "least populous" because as
population gets smaller, it becomes more difficult to distinguish
between actual corruption and good-ol'boyism .
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Mark Brader:
>> Stevens has been making efforts to increase the state's population, too?
"Veronique":
> I'm wondering if the rankings left out "least populous" because as
> population gets smaller, it becomes more difficult to distinguish
> between actual corruption and good-ol'boyism .
More likely because smaller states will tend to have smaller governments,
with the result that 10 years isn't long enough to get statistically
meaningful data on the number of incidents of corruption, I'd think.
--
Mark Brader "Succeed, and you'll be remembered for a very long time.
Toronto Fail, and you'll be remembered even longer."
m...@vex.net -- Hel Faczel (John Barnes: ...the Martian King)
Ha! *Our* corruption is done by judges and their cousins. Practically zero
conviction rate!
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.web-ho.com/gigs.html
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org
Yabbut, if a state was truly corrupt, wouldn't there be NO convictions?
>Ted The Cat <tedth...@aol.com> writes:
>> The publication Corporate Crime Reporter crunched Department of
>> Justice statistics in 2007 to rank the 35 most populous states of the
>> nation by corruption. The publication calculated a corruption rate,
>> which it defined as the total number of public corruption convictions
>> from 1997 to 2006 per 100,000 residents.
>>
>> These are the results:
>>
>> 10. New York (3.95)
>
>Ha! *Our* corruption is done by judges and their cousins. Practically zero
>conviction rate!
>
>Pierre
Damn! We're still behind New Jersey, though.
Did anyone do a chart? Louisiana and Mississippi are kind of in a
class by themselves, then there's a gradual decrease to Virginia,
where there's noticeable reduction between it and the next state.
After that, they continue dropping leisurely. A goal, I suppose, would
be for the first 12 on the list to reduce their corruption rate to
under 3.
Ten Most Corrupt States
1. North Dakota (8.30)
2. Louisianna (7.67)
3. Alaska (7.50)
4. Mississippi (6.66)
5. Montana (6.20)
6. Kentucky (5.18)
7-8 tie Delaware (5.10)
7-8 tie South Dakota (5.10)
9. Ohio (4.69)
10. Illinois (4.68)
Ten Least Corrupt States
41. Colorado (1.56)
42. Washington (1.52)
43. New Mexico (1.50)
44. Utah (1.4117)
45. Kansas (1.4109)
46. Minnesota (1.24)
47. New Hampshire (1.10)
48. Iowa (0.91)
49. Nebraska (0.70)
50. Oregon (0.68)
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm
Politico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16391_Page4.html
>The publication Corporate Crime Reporter crunched Department of
>Justice statistics in 2007 to rank the 35 most populous states of the
>nation by corruption. The publication calculated a corruption rate,
>which it defined as the total number of public corruption convictions
>from 1997 to 2006 per 100,000 residents.
A truly corrupt state would not convict its leaders. So a high
conviction rate might be a symptom of a formerly corrupt state
cleaning up its act.
--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)
>Ted The Cat <tedth...@aol.com> writes:
>> The publication Corporate Crime Reporter crunched Department of
>> Justice statistics in 2007 to rank the 35 most populous states of the
>> nation by corruption. The publication calculated a corruption rate,
>> which it defined as the total number of public corruption convictions
>> from 1997 to 2006 per 100,000 residents.
>>
>> These are the results:
>>
>> 10. New York (3.95)
>
>Ha! *Our* corruption is done by judges and their cousins. Practically zero
>conviction rate!
We want Kim! We want Kim! We ...
> Interesting, especially if you compare it to a by-state list of the
> last several presidents and -elects. NY, MI, GA, CA, TX, AR are all
> in the double digits (10, 20, 21, 23, 16, 18). Of course, the NY
> corruption index may have been higher back in Nixon's time.
Nixon worked in a law firm in New York City during the five years preceding
his first successful presidential campaign, but he was a Californian: he
served California in both the House and the Senate, and he only moved to
New York after he lost the 1962 California gubernatorial race. After he was
elected president he acquired a house in San Clemente and used it as a
"Western White House"; after he resigned the presidency in 1974 he moved
back to California and spent the rest of his life there. Unlike many other
Californians (including Ronald Reagan), Nixon was a California native:
IIRC, he didn't care much for New York, and New York didn't care much for
him, either. As far as New Yorkers are concerned, there hasn't been a
native-son president since FDR.
--
Mark "Van Buren for the win!" Steese
=======================
The disturbed eyes rise,
furtive, foiled, dissatisfied
from meditation on the true
and insignificant.
I think you might be incorrect about Nixon spending the rest of his life in
CA...didn't he and Pat move to Saddle River, NJ which is where they were
living when they died? Wikipedia also says that Nixon died in New York
City.
Lisa Ann
Dang! I forgot about that. Yep, he and Pat moved from California back to
NYC in 1979 and moved from NYC to Saddle River in 1981; ten years later
they moved to Park Ridge, NJ, where Pat died; he died in a Manhattan
hospital. I think I was misled by the fact that he opened the Nixon
Library in Yorba Linda in 1990 and was buried there four years later. It
is striking that our only native-Californian president should have
rejected his home state in favor of the East Coast. Too many painful
memories, perhaps.
--
Mark Steese
===========
I often sigh still
for the dark downward and vegetating kingdom
of the fish and reptile.
> A truly corrupt state would not convict its leaders. So a high
> conviction rate might be a symptom of a formerly corrupt state
> cleaning up its act.
Umm, in a recent case of some notoriety[1], it was the Feds filing
charges, not the state government. Of course, that hasn't resulted in
a conviction yet, but it will be a different courthouse should a
conviction occur in that case.
[1] that other thread, too
/dps
Random memory pop-up: the thing I remember most about Richard Nixon's
funeral is how his younger brother (wiki says it was Edward) just
sobbed and sobbed. It raised my opinion of RMN.
--
QueBarbara
The horn is just a thing that converts
electricity into honks. - huey
> Ted The Cat <tedth...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>The publication Corporate Crime Reporter crunched Department of
>>Justice statistics in 2007 to rank the 35 most populous states of the
>>nation by corruption. The publication calculated a corruption rate,
>>which it defined as the total number of public corruption convictions
>>from 1997 to 2006 per 100,000 residents.
>
> A truly corrupt state would not convict its leaders.
What makes you think that? Even if there weren't a single honest judge or
juror in the entire state, leaders make enemies, and it's just as easy to
get a corrupt conviction as a corrupt acquittal.
> So a high conviction rate might be a symptom of a formerly corrupt state
> cleaning up its act.
Wait, I thought you just said that a truly corrupt state would not convict
its leaders. If that's the case, where did these "formerly corrupt" states
come from? Did their corrupt leaders have Scroogesque revelations and
renounce corruption? Did Marshal Dillon ride into town and run out the owl-
hoots? America wants to know!
Yeah, this article could be titled:
Top States in Enforcing Corruption Laws
Louisiana is toughest of the thirty five in the fight against
corruption and Oregon is a cesspool of inequity.
> So, now USA Today has a story about the same study of the rate of
> corruption in the 50 states, but this story has the rates for all 50
> states, rather than just the most populous 35 states, and this story
> lists its results in a map, but not in a list. Putting the two
> stories together (and assuming I have not made a clerical error) the
> top and the bottom of the rankings look like this:
Ten Least Corrupt States -- Toughest Prosecution
> 1. North Dakota (8.30)
> 2. Louisianna (7.67)
> 3. Alaska (7.50)
> 4. Mississippi (6.66)
> 5. Montana (6.20)
> 6. Kentucky (5.18)
> 7-8 tie Delaware (5.10)
> 7-8 tie South Dakota (5.10)
> 9. Ohio (4.69)
> 10. Illinois (4.68)
Ten Most Corrupt States -- Lax Prosecution
1. Oregon (0.68)
2. Nebraska (0.70)
3. Iowa (0.91)
4. New Hampshire (1.10)
5. Minnesota (1.24)
6. Kansas (1.4109)
7. Utah (1.4117)
8. New Mexico (1.50)
9. Washington (1.52)
10. Colorado (1.56)
Prove it, you jerk.
Iowa ranks very low in corruption because we're a state with low
population and mostly rural. Something like 90% of the "cities" in
Iowa have fewer than 3000 residents. Corruption tends to follow
money and there's just not all that much money floating around.
We're also used to scrutinising politicians up close and very
personal-like; I have never voted for a presidential candidate I
have not seen in person (and usually met on the handshake basis). We
treat our local politicians with even more familiarity and less
respect than we treat national ones.
If you think people in small towns don't pay strict attention to
every penny in the town budget, well, you're delusional. I've been
attending small town meetings half my life and if the US as a whole
were run with that much attention to the budget, we would not be in
a financial crisis right now.
Iowa has prosecuted people who have scammed as little as a couple
thousand from an official budget. My impression of other states is
that such amounts are barely even noticed, let alone become headline
news the way they do here.
Shirley
I think Weary is just making a point that he expounded on elsewhere.
The statistics by themselves don't prove anything. It's possible to
theorize that higher conviction numbers mean more corruption. But
it's also possible to theorize that higher numbers mean the state is
agressive in its opposition to corruption and states with lower
numbers are more lax. We would need more information to decide which
of those interpretations is more likely.
For my part at least, the point is well taken.
--
Opus the Penguin
Most of us don't store much fat in our heads. - bill van
Or it could be titled accurately: States with the Most Public Corruption
Convictions. There is no necessary correlation between convictions and
number of crimes *or* convictions and enforcement of laws. The article
doesn't say how the number of convictions compares to the number of arrests
made or the number of acquittals, or, for that matter, the number of public
corruption laws there are to be enforced.
> Louisiana is toughest of the thirty five in the fight against
> corruption and Oregon is a cesspool of inequity.
Hah! I *wish* Oregon were a cesspool of iniquity. Might make the place
more interesting.
--
Mark Steese
=======================================================================
PS: Your second question, you thought I forgot? I didn't. I never found
the banana slug. - William Least Heat-Moon
--
Dilbert Firestorm
Opus is my Hero!