Browsed by
Tag: Obama

Expected Slide For The USA Into An Authoritarian Form Of Government

Expected Slide For The USA Into An Authoritarian Form Of Government

Comments 0 Comment

What are the United States of America corruption scores?  We first go to Transparency International, the global coalition against corruption, web site.  This organization has found measurements that are applied to most all countries on Earth and then given each a corruption score after their examination is completed.  They have defined corruption to be the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

The higher score number, the apparent less corruption that that country practices.  Please see their continuum scale shown below.  

Scale shows degree of corruption

Note that each country scores are not perfect because patterns of corruption are almost always hidden from the public.   Note that a score of 100 is perfect and no country has this score.  In 2020 two countries had the best scores.  The two top countries measured are New Zealand with a score of 88 in the year 2020 and Denmark also had the top score of 88 in the year 2020.

In comparison, the United States had a score of 67, in the year 2020, the most recent measurement.  Canada has a score of 77 in 2020, way less corrupt than the United States. 

Each year this organization calculates a single score for each country.  The numbers for each country typically rise or fall depending upon what Transparency International finds each country practices in that measured year.  Sometimes the score does not change.  This organization is looking for any method of corruption practiced by any portion of the county they are examining.  The corruption can be political, banking, legal system, education, social practices, etc.  Corruption, unfortunately comes in many forms and because people trying to use this scheme try to hide it as best as they can.  Thus, the corruption scores are not perfect for a number of reasons.  Some countries, typically authoritarian, try to hide much if not all of their operations.  Transparency International tries best to look deep into each countries operations.

Transparency International puts up a wonderful colored map to show us which countries are doing poorly or very good with staving off corruption.

Corruption Perception Index Map

 

 

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index/

Looking at the map a rather shocking realization appears.  The lighter colored countries have less corruption and they are mainly located in Europe, USA, Canada and Australia.  So much of the map is dark red colors revealing that much of the countries have a significant corruption problem due to a variety of factors, namely ignorance, selfishness, and religion as well as other factors.  Transparency International puts up individual stories into their web site, for each year, explaining individual significant instances of corruption that they have found.

Looking at the map one can quickly draw some rather quick observations or opinions:

  • Democracies seem to have less corruption.
  • Highly regimen religions like Catholicism, Islam etc seem be prone to more corruption when viewing the map.

Looking beyond the colors on the map you can examine further why there are color differences by reading some research:  Following are some examples for the color differences:

Let us next look at the United States scores for past year corruption figures to see if there is any revealing pattern.

  • (Note: Transparency International changed their score method in 2011 and prior. years.)
  • 2012 = 73 score. Obama: January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
  • 2013 = 73 score. Obama: January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
  • 2014 = 74 score. Obama: January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
  • 2015 = 76 score. Obama: January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
  • 2016 = 74 score  Obama: January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
  • 2017 = 75 score. Trump: January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
  • 2018 = 71 score. Trump: January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
  • 2019 = 69 score. Trump: January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
  • 2020 = 67 score. Trump: January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
  • 2021 = Not yet recorded.

Looking at the United States scores shown above, note the lower scores for the GOP president as compared to the Democrat.   Unites States most recent score of 67 is quite a drop from 2017.  Why?    

US$1 trillion in suspicious funds was laundered through US banks, exposing significant gaps in US anti-money laundering rules.

Companies paid a record-setting US$2.9 billion to resolve charges that they bribed foreign officials. 

The United States of America, expected corruption scores for the future years should go to a much lower number because the Republican Party is cheating to win the next elections and the expected result into a dictatorship form of government for the United States.

“The Brennan Center for Justice reports that “between January 1 and May 14, 2021, at least 14 states enacted 22 new laws that restrict access to the vote” and “at least 61 bills with restrictive provisions are moving through 18 state legislatures.” Those bills are designed not to avert nonexistent voter fraud but to avert another election defeat for Republicans — and they are drawing perilously close to that goal.”

 

 

 

 

Posted: August 19, 2021
Updated: August 20, 21, 2021

Why It Is Not Wise To Say “Islamic Terrorism”.

Why It Is Not Wise To Say “Islamic Terrorism”.

It has come up in the conservative press and some dim witted Republican politicians that the Obama administration fails to use the term “Islamic terrorism”.  The right wing neocons love to pound their chests and think war is honorable so long as it is some others son who dies.  It seems the height of hypocrisy that anyone should promote going to war when it usually is some other person who will die.  War is the failure of negotiation and diplomacy, it is said.  The right wing conservatives it seems have a low IQ level so if you are in that category, let me tell you the logic for not specifying “Islamic terrorism”.  A darn good reason is that ISIS makes some claims that help it gain recruits and die hard followers.  Put simply for my Republican friends, they gain members if it is perceived that Islam is under attack.  For the president of the United States to use the term “Islamic terrorism” seems to paint all individuals who practice Islam as being a terrorist.  The ISIS people then can claim that the United States is against Islam and wishes it to be destroyed as a religion.  Now for my dumb Republican friends, would that wording play into the hands of ISIS?  You bet is would.  Let me express this in terms that the NRA gun luggers who seem to populate the Republican party might understand.  By the president of the United States saying “Islamic terrorism” puts another scum bag out there for the American military to fight if we go to war with ISIS.  If the Republican party insists in using the term “Islamic terrorism” we have more enemy to fight which would be incredibly stupid.  I hold little hope because Republicans cherry pick their arguments. They fail to take the time to walk around the problem to gain more facts and see more sides of any problem.  Please try to view this from the enemy’s perspective if you can.

Political Donors Win Lottery?

Political Donors Win Lottery?

Comments 0 Comment

The top list of money donors to Obama’s campaign includes a number of top universities.  Here is the list (from  opensecrets.org) in order of amount donated:

Top, first donor:  University of California:  $1,123,898
5th donor:  Harvard University:   $779,460
9th donor:  Stanford University:  $448,184
15th donor:  Columbia University:  $502,866
19th donor:  University of Chicago:  $456,209

The OpenSecrets web site prints this explanation:  “The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families.”

The total donation from these top university contributors amounts to  3,310,617.
In the Los Angeles Times (Sunday January 25, 2009, A15) it was reported (Boehner [R]) “cited plans to pump 6 billion into wealthy colleges and universities …”

Sounds like the political process might be another type of lottery.  The universities pay a bit over 3 million and get paid back over 6 billion.  With two candidates running for office, I would say the odds are 50 / 50; pretty good odds.

That’s pretty smart.  Become a really bid donor to a successful president candidacy and you can reap a stupendous reward.  Oh, I almost forgot.  We, the tax payer, actually pay this huge amount.  Oh I almost forgot.  They explain that this pay out is part of a stimulus package.  Still sounds like the lottery to me.

2008 Election and Statistical Effects Upon.

2008 Election and Statistical Effects Upon.

Comments 0 Comment

Two past historical events have statistical implications for the current 2008 presidential election.  The first event is looking back in history to find the lowest approval rating of a national leader in a democracy.   It appears that Alejandro Toledo in 2004, President of Peru between 2001 and 2006 received single digit rating of 5 to 8 percent.

The reason for this effort in an attempt to figure out what is the lowest level any national leader can go, an artificial cellar floor.  This concept is to figure out what part of a society cannot be moved to vote disapproval.  Put another way, we try to find a statistical amount of people who will still support a ruler under the worst of circumstances.  This group of individuals is either brain dead, disconnected from world happenings, stupid, or honestly finding some redeeming value in the ruler.  We will call this statistical phenomenon, the bonehead factor.  Statistics is all about registering change in people’s attitudes and one can make a really slim case to discount these boneheads because they are cemented into their views.  Once we find this figure, we can then use it to figure out how really bad a particular ruler is by subtracting that amount.  As one convenient example, we have read reports that President Bush’s ratings have slid down to 31%.  We can take a huge leap and bring in the Peru factor of 5 to 8% even though that number comes from a completely different society.  If we subtract 5 to 8 percent points, we then get an actual national approval rating of 23 to 26 percent for President Bush.  This effort is to point out that statistics can be tweaked to reveal a bit more than what is first apparent.  I would not want to stand behind defending that approach, as it is a theory at this stage.

The second example is the Tom Bradley effect, also called the Wilder effect.  A very popular black American who was a successful mayor of Los Angeles ran for state governor in 1982.  He was ahead in the poles but lost the race.  The spread between the polling approval prior to the race and the subsequent percentage loss in the actual voter tally was about 3 percent.  Some people think this is a racial factor, white people not ready to pull the lever in favor of a minority when they enter the polling booth.  The 3 percent in 1982 has apparently diminished but we have not been able to find by how much.

The presidential race of 2008 brings in a large number of cultural, social, political, religious to mention a few.

The Republican Party is infected by Bush’s sick theology of governing and thus loosing large chunks of support in most statistical categories.  The bonehead factor, we first mentioned, might help the Republicans a bit and hurt Obama.  The next factor is the Bradley Effect.  Obviously Obama could loose some statistical percentage points.  Once one realizes these factors the reports one hears takes on different meanings.  It is imperative that Obama run ahead of McCain to thwart the Bonehead and Bradley effects.   This helps explain whey Obama campaign is still blasting full throttle up to the very end of the campaign.  This also explains why McCain camp might be running a really lame, much less energetic run for the presidency.  I for one would be appalled to really find out that the McCain strategists did a halfhearted effort because they counted on these statistical effects.   That would really be boneheaded on their part.  If Obama fails to win because the Bradley effect did come to fruition then that would be really sad for this nation.

The other outcome might take place.  If the poles put Obama way ahead of McCain and the Bradley effect drops his chances to a tie vote and these effects put the race into the courts and the Supreme Court does a replay of their last fiasco, the outcome might not end so peacefully.  This country already has a number of crises going on and to see our people make a move against the Supreme Court would just add another huge crisis for us to face.

Game Of Dominoes

Game Of Dominoes

Comments 0 Comment

The supreme court decision that allegedly took the 2000 year presidential election out of the hands of the sovereign power, the people, and was wrestled away by that very body expected to protect the Constitution and in so doing took the responsibility of the fate of the country away from the people.  The unthinkable happened; the decision was made by the very judges hired to uphold the letter and intent of the Constitution.  The Constitution placed sovereign power firmly into the hands of the people.  This folly led to that putting in place a game of falling dominoes.  The past history has been a series of failures or falling dominoes, one domino hitting the next to fall the next domino next to it in a chain.  The Supreme Court put one domino on the table, that being deciding upon Bush as the ruler of the United States.  That domino began to fall when he trusted the United States into an illegitimate war.  The second domino to fall was that the war was so much an incompetent operation that the military found itself cemented in place, not able to extricate itself.

The next domino was the ruler taking steps to diminish the United States in stature by following ideology instead of seeking out unbiased analysis and devising policy according to facts.  The next domino to fall was the sovereign power, which slowly came around to understanding the ruler appointed by a group of judges had made a mistake and this person did not serve their purposes.  The next domino was the economy, which fell, but not for reasons attributable to the Republican Party but the ruling person, the falling domino was a most convenient explanation.

The 2008 election process is the fork in the road for the path of falling dominoes.  This is where the fallen dominoes will hit one or anther domino lying next in the path.  The two dominoes that are in the direct next path are called McCain and the second domino is Obama.  Let us hope that the Supreme Court does not intervene again and make the wrong domino fall.