Re: [OT] Happy New Year and E911

Hey, and we Louisianians are PROUD of our corruption, too, don't forget
about that!

(Currently residing in Virginia)
Nicholas Caldwell
clcaldwell@kreative.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Happy New Year and E911

> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:28:09 -0500, "Thomas Barclay"
<kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:
>
> >1. Happy New Year (by whichever calendar) to
> >one and all.
>
> What, you didn't wish everyone a Happy Hogmannay? And you call
yourself a
> Scots descendent! *L*
>
> >The irony of a Canadian commenting on
> >Moronic Leadership goes beyond funny. I'm
> >a Canadian and I'd gladly trade the corrupt,
> >self-serving, spineless, public-trust-abusing
> >rat-weasel we've got for GWB. And I live
> >right at the edge of Ottawa, so if anyone
> >ought to know....
>
> Well, as a Canadian transplanted to the US (northeast Louisiana, of
all
> places) I have to say that I haven't seen _anything_ like the
corruption
in
> Louisiana. However, Louisiana is bad by the standards of any
bureaucracy
less
> corrupt than, say, Colombia. (Just ask a Louisianan!)
>
> Is there an objective source of information about corruption in
government?
> December's issue of _Wired_ put me on to the "Corruption Perceptions
Index".
> This can be found at transparency.org. The full URL is here:
>
http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2002/2002.08.28.cpi.en
.htm
l
>
> According to Wired (Bruce Sterling, actually), "Every year, the group
> [Transparency International, a German activist group] asks policy
wonks in
100
> nations to report on local dirty business. The aim is to assign each
country a
> number on a scale of malfeasance, from 1 to 10, and rank them from
least
to
> most corrupt." A 1 is bad (expedient) while a 10 is good
(accountable).
>
> 102 countries are now rated. The top twenty-six, in order with their
ranking,
> are:
>
> 9.7 Finland
> 9.5 Denmark
> 9.5 New Zealand
> 9.4 Iceland
> 9.3 Singapore
> 9.3 Sweden
> 9.0 Canada
> 9.0 Luxembourg
> 9.0 Netherlands
> 8.7 United Kingdom
> 8.6 Australia
> 8.5 Norway
> 8.5 Switzerland
> 8.2 Hong Kong
> 7.8 Austria
> 7.7 United States
> 7.5 Chile
> 7.3 Germany
> 7.3 Israel
> 7.1 Belgium
> 7.1 Japan
> 7.1 Spain
> 6.9 Ireland
> 6.4 Botswana
> 6.3 France
> 6.3 Portugal
>
> The reason I post this is that I thought it would make fascinating
reading
for
> anyone creating a Tuffleyverse bureaucracy. I think it's fair to say
that
the
> NAC would be less corrupt than the FSE. The NSL would be close to the
NAC
> (maybe even a little less corrupt, or more, depending on which nations
you
> think would have the greatest corruption), with the ESU having more
> corruption. This assumes, of course, that corruption doesn't radically
change
> between the various nations.
>
> If you are curious, the bottom five nations (of the 102 tested) are:
>
> 1.7 Angola
> 1.7 Madagascar
> 1.7 Paraguay
> 1.6 Nigeria
> 1.2 Bangladesh
>
> Notably absent from the list are dictatorial regimes and theocracies,
> presumably because they either don't allow their citizens to respond
to
the
> surveys or the bureaucrats simply mimic the "party line". There is no
rating
> for Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, for instance. Most of the Middle East
is
> missing, too.
>
> What I've noticed moving down here to the US from Canada isn't so much
a
> "better/worse" situation, but a matter of differences. For the most
part,
the
> people I've had to deal with in bureaucracy are hard working
(overworked,
> really), sincere folk who happen to like helping people. Of course, I
may
be
> biased as my fiancee works for Louisiana's Medicaid office.
>
>
> Allan Goodall 		 agoodall@hyperbear.com
> http://www.hyperbear.com
>
> "We come into the world and take our chances
>  Fate is just the weight of circumstances
>  That's the way that Lady Luck dances
>  Roll the bones." - N. Peart
>