OT: Philbilly and Favre

[Smoked Toag]

Haley Barbour and all his foot soldiers have an incredible grip on state elections. Just absolutely crushing to the point that it’s not a fair fight. There are better options out there but they’ll never see the light of day because of Barbours political machine.

Who are they? At least they are pro-economic development and create an atmosphere to try and bring home the bacon or whatever. Do you want Chris McDaniel and them who think that shutting off federal money to MS is the answer? There's a level of reality here, that people need to accept.

I'm no gung-ho Haley Barbour or TateR supporter here. But I do see them as the best chance for the state to truly compete. I mean they tried to get the income tax eliminated but instead we got this 'compromise' which still results in competing states being able to say, "Mississippi has an income tax".

 

[mstateglfr]

It would be better if it did work that way, but unfortunately advertising and subscriptions don't generally get you journalism. Even when people paid for local newspapers, you often got pretty ****** journalism (e.g., Clarion Ledger). You'd occasionally get a journalist that actually understood the value of even handed reporting in a democracy/republic, but that was unfortunately the exception and not the rule.

Actual history doesnt support your jacked up claim. In Mississippi the journalism may have been bad even when advertising and subscriptions paid for local news, but that was not the case in all parts of the country. If you arent aware of what local journalism has done thru the years, take time to read up on what stories local journalism broke.
Obviously there is a place for the NYT, Globe, Trib, LA Times, and more too since national journalism is needed for war reporting, federal reporting, etc.


Basically, what we had is better than what we have. Going back to what we had wouldnt solve everything, but it would make some things better. I am all ears for a better option than what I mentioned.
What we have right now is toxic and largely worthless. Its people screaming on TV about the latest misinterpreted topic to be outraged over, news articles being inserted into papers from sister papers, and online articles that heavily feature twitter commentary about the story topic.
What we have right now is such a low bar that most anything would be an improvement.

 

[ababyatemydingo]

Who are they? At least they are pro-economic development and create an atmosphere to try and bring home the bacon or whatever. Do you want Chris McDaniel and them who think that shutting off federal money to MS is the answer? There's a level of reality here, that people need to accept.

I'm no gung-ho Haley Barbour or TateR supporter here. But I do see them as the best chance for the state to truly compete. I mean they tried to get the income tax eliminated but instead we got this 'compromise' which still results in competing states being able to say, "Mississippi has an income tax".

it goes a LOT deeper than that, Goat. Haley Barbour and his minions are extremely bad for Mississippi. And I'm as conservative as they come (not Chris McDaniel conservative). He get's people elected that will forever owe him and his political machine favors. It has nothing to do with "the good of Mississippi". He operates purely on political strategy. He's a very smart guy. He's playing 3D chess. Not checkers.

 

[thatsbaseball]

There's a hell of a lot more keeping us from "competing" with other states than just income tax.

 

[GloryDawg]

Damn former USM students are trying hard to equal former Ole Miss law school student in being ethical.****

 

[Smoked Toag]

There's a hell of a lot more keeping us from "competing" with other states than just income tax.

That's the point, they are at least trying.

And ababyatemydingo, I acknowledge that a lot of what they do isn't good for Mississippi. I'm just leery of the other alternative.

And sometimes I don't think it's one or two pulling the strings, I think it may be the collective hivemind of middle-class and middle-upper-class Mississippi. I mean look at how folks are shutting out medical marijuana from their towns because, well, reasons.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Pretty much everyone involved with Tunica county is corrupt except for a handful. Just absolutely shameful stuff going on.

 

[johnson86-1]

Thanks for doing exactly what I asked not to do.

Seriously, be specific. I already know what the answer to this is (or lack thereof), but just curious what folks can come up with.

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. People are self-interested. And that doesn't stop when they work for the government or become elected officials. You occasionally get an elected official or government employee who not only doesn't take advantage of their position for themselves, but also won't just go along to get along. Those people are labeled as difficult to work with and they don't advance (or they don't get re-elected). For the most part, you have reasonably honest people who let their self interest influence their actions/decisions and are only kept in check by how much they can rationalize. That is what I think has happened with some of the welfare fraud. Some people are certainly just crooked, but some have seen how wasteful/harmful actual welfare spending has been, and you take that experience and then present them with an opportunity to spend that money on "investments" that will help the poor, and yea, so they get a few trips and/or private opportunities for themselves also, but they're just doing what they would do anyway, not actually doing anything different in exchange for those perqs.

The elected positions tend to be worse because those jobs are worth the most to the people that are willing to bend the rules the most.

SO the answer to your question is yes. Public Choice theory applies at all levels, whether elected, appointed, or hired, so you have varying levels of corruption from soft corruption (which is the most prevalent) to hard corruption (which is less prevalent, but certainly prevalent also). This stuff looks like it's on the firm side of soft corruption. There's no explicit payoffs, just lots of favors done, but with some "uncouth" comments that would have caused some politicians to back off earlier.

 

[Cooterpoot]

When you say "government", who do you mean? People love to throw that catch all out there, but people come and go in the government all the time. Do you mean elected officials? Local, state or federal? Government workers?

Be specific.

All elected officials are on the take in some form. If you don't believe that, then politics is not your thing. Some hide it better than others. Some use it to gain power. It's all a money game. And that's local all the way to federal to worldwide. Those with power and money will always have an advantage. Just how it works.

 

[Sounder68]

When Shad White learned of this corruption and took it to the local DA, instead of the FBI, that should tell you all you need to know about his loyalties. He was never going to betray his old boss Phil - and he had to know Phil was involved from the start. Shad is ambitious (and smart). He wants to hold press conferences and sell people on his "take no prisoners" efforts. But, at the end of the day, he's not going to betray his godfathers.

I've heard that this scam involves A LOT of high-ranking current or former state officials.

 

[johnson86-1]

Actual history doesnt support your jacked up claim. In Mississippi the journalism may have been bad even when advertising and subscriptions paid for local news, but that was not the case in all parts of the country. If you arent aware of what local journalism has done thru the years, take time to read up on what stories local journalism broke.

I wasn't saying it never got good reporting, just that it wasn't sufficient.

Obviously there is a place for the NYT, Globe, Trib, LA Times, and more too since national journalism is needed for war reporting, federal reporting, etc.

THere is a huge need for federal reporting, but somehow even though they have more money available (or maybe because there was more money available?), they were uniformly ****** before state and local newspapers were.

Basically, what we had is better than what we have. Going back to what we had wouldnt solve everything, but it would make some things better. I am all ears for a better option than what I mentioned.
What we have right now is toxic and largely worthless. Its people screaming on TV about the latest misinterpreted topic to be outraged over, news articles being inserted into papers from sister papers, and online articles that heavily feature twitter commentary about the story topic.
What we have right now is such a low bar that most anything would be an improvement.

What we had was better, but how do you propose we go back? In reality, the sports section subsidized the news section, and subscribing to some newspaper was sort of a marker for being an adult. People don't need newspapers for sports news anymore and the norm on subscribing to the paper is gone and you can't just magic it back into existence.

Short of having a rich person take a personal interest and fund a newspaper on an annual basis (can't be with a foundation because it wouldn't be long before the foundation was corrupted and the foundation and news became leftist), I don't see a way to do it.

 

[MSU Fan.sixpack]

If you think Barbour handpicked Bryant as his successor then you weren't paying much attention back then.

 

[Smoked Toag]

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. People are self-interested. And that doesn't stop when they work for the government or become elected officials. You occasionally get an elected official or government employee who not only doesn't take advantage of their position for themselves, but also won't just go along to get along. Those people are labeled as difficult to work with and they don't advance (or they don't get re-elected). For the most part, you have reasonably honest people who let their self interest influence their actions/decisions and are only kept in check by how much they can rationalize. That is what I think has happened with some of the welfare fraud. Some people are certainly just crooked, but some have seen how wasteful/harmful actual welfare spending has been, and you take that experience and then present them with an opportunity to spend that money on "investments" that will help the poor, and yea, so they get a few trips and/or private opportunities for themselves also, but they're just doing what they would do anyway, not actually doing anything different in exchange for those perqs.

The elected positions tend to be worse because those jobs are worth the most to the people that are willing to bend the rules the most.

SO the answer to your question is yes. Public Choice theory applies at all levels, whether elected, appointed, or hired, so you have varying levels of corruption from soft corruption (which is the most prevalent) to hard corruption (which is less prevalent, but certainly prevalent also). This stuff looks like it's on the firm side of soft corruption. There's no explicit payoffs, just lots of favors done, but with some "uncouth" comments that would have caused some politicians to back off earlier.

So then it's not "government". It's people. That's the big point here. There's no boogeyman to point towards, so people just throw out "government".

Let's overthrow the government and see how that works out.

 

[ababyatemydingo]

If you think Barbour handpicked Bryant as his successor then you weren't paying much attention back then.

I don't think i said so anywhere in any of my posts. I said occasionally some slip through the cracks...see Stacy Pickering. Also, see Bryant. He has his man Reeves in there now, as well as Fitch, and White. So, he controls the three most important positions in Statewide elected office.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

There already has been, for the most part. Only people left are the rich folks and the poor folks.

Are there many hunting lodges out there? I think eventually that could be a big money-maker for the area. I'm talking the nice ones that bring people in from out of state, not the shacks and RV parks where Danny Joe from Clinton pays $1,000/year to hunt. Outside of the public land, not sure how much of the private owned land is consolidated enough to do something like that.

There are any hunting camps ranging from those with initiation fees in the 6 figures all the way down to those that cost a few grand per year. Unfortunately, our best deer, even with optimal care, often lag behind Texas and midwest deer. Additionally many MS hunters would rather keep those deer to themselves rather than make money via paid hunts. The best deer hunting land, usually along the river, has been tied up in the same families/camps for generations. There are a few "high fence" areas around, but not many.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

I've heard that this scam involves A LOT of high-ranking current or former state officials.

Without a doubt. And that's why NO ONE will do any jail time or even be charged. They can't run the risk of someone singing.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

When Shad White learned of this corruption and took it to the local DA, instead of the FBI, that should tell you all you need to know about his loyalties. He was never going to betray his old boss Phil - and he had to know Phil was involved from the start. Shad is ambitious (and smart). He wants to hold press conferences and sell people on his "take no prisoners" efforts. But, at the end of the day, he's not going to betray his godfathers.

I've heard that this scam involves A LOT of high-ranking current or former state officials.

Tons of graft in Jxn and Canton, but don't look for ole Shadrack to look into that either.

 

[johnson86-1]

So then it's not "government". It's people. That's the big point here. There's no boogeyman to point towards, so people just throw out "government".

Let's overthrow the government and see how that works out.

I don't think anybody is confused as to whether government is people??? And you can usually interchange them, but referring to government is useful because the way you structure government can absolutely ensure corruption. If you focus on changing the people, you are doomed to failure because there aren't enough unicorns out there to have government be non-corrupt when the incentives push for corruption. The best you can do is try to structure the government (and limit its activitites) to minimize the incentives and opportunities for corruption.

 

[AFDawg]

A topical concussion prevention cream?

 

[maroonmadman]

When Shad White learned of this corruption and took it to the local DA, instead of the FBI, that should tell you all you need to know about his loyalties. He was never going to betray his old boss Phil - and he had to know Phil was involved from the start. Shad is ambitious (and smart). He wants to hold press conferences and sell people on his "take no prisoners" efforts. But, at the end of the day, he's not going to betray his godfathers.

I've heard that this scam involves A LOT of high-ranking current or former state officials.

Correct. Shad knows that the Hinds Co. DA office is understaffed and overworked and therefore they are the most likely group to 'screw things up' and let some of these folks off the hook. This is exactly why he didn't go directly to the FBI or local Federal DA's office. This way ol Shad can say, "I did my best but those damn Dems in the Hinds Co. DA's office dropped the ball." Hide and watch folks. This will happen.

The best way out for Mississippi taxpayers is for the Feds to take over this investigation completely but even then they will have to remove some of Barbour's cronies from that picture.

 

[$altyDawg]

He has his man Reeves in there now, as well as Fitch, and White.

You left out Hoseman.

 

[ababyatemydingo]

You left out Hoseman.

I did. But Hoseman is really powerless, in the grand scheme of things. Other than committee assignments

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

I hope you're wrong. I like to believe Delbert isn't tied to that group.

Now Gunn probably is.

 

[Smoked Toag]

I hope you're wrong. I like to believe Delbert isn't tied to that group.

Now Gunn probably is.

This seems correct. No idea if it actually is.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. People are self-interested. And that doesn't stop when they work for the government or become elected officials. You occasionally get an elected official or government employee who not only doesn't take advantage of their position for themselves, but also won't just go along to get along. Those people are labeled as difficult to work with and they don't advance (or they don't get re-elected). For the most part, you have reasonably honest people who let their self interest influence their actions/decisions and are only kept in check by how much they can rationalize. That is what I think has happened with some of the welfare fraud. Some people are certainly just crooked, but some have seen how wasteful/harmful actual welfare spending has been, and you take that experience and then present them with an opportunity to spend that money on "investments" that will help the poor, and yea, so they get a few trips and/or private opportunities for themselves also, but they're just doing what they would do anyway, not actually doing anything different in exchange for those perqs.

The elected positions tend to be worse because those jobs are worth the most to the people that are willing to bend the rules the most.

SO the answer to your question is yes. Public Choice theory applies at all levels, whether elected, appointed, or hired, so you have varying levels of corruption from soft corruption (which is the most prevalent) to hard corruption (which is less prevalent, but certainly prevalent also). This stuff looks like it's on the firm side of soft corruption. There's no explicit payoffs, just lots of favors done, but with some "uncouth" comments that would have caused some politicians to back off earlier.

And doesn't that rational self-interest calculation change a bit when pound-me-in-the-@***-prison is a possibility back on the table?

 

[Maroon Eagle]

There needs to be a mass evacuation of the Delta.

There is and that's why Melanie Sojourner is losing her Senate seat.

 

[johnson86-1]

And doesn't that rational self-interest calculation change a bit when pound-me-in-the-@***-prison is a possibility back on the table?

It does, but it's not easy to set up a system apart from the corruption. The federal government has tried to do it with inspector generals. It doesn't seem to have done a lot (I don't know enough about how they are structured and operate to know if that's because people want to go back into non-IG positions later or if it's just they can't actually prosecute and the DOJ is politicized or what).

For a private sector analogy, if you ever work somewhere with an internal audit department, it's generally a ****** department to work in. If you ask questions because you don't understand something, people get offended. When you push on things you don't understand, you pick up enemies for life. So a lot of people in internal audit, when it comes to the soft corruption type stuff, the incenetive is to go along to get along. Those people just try to ride their time out. The ones that don't end up putting a stop to some bad practices and saving the company money and/or embarrassment, but they also end up putting some people under an unmerited cloud of suspicion and they are hated by anybody involved or that has friends that were involved. Or they end up being hated for stopping "perqs" that people liked to take advantage of.

But the incentives in private business are still much better than in something like State Auditor. For state auditor, you've got to get elected and it's hard to get elected if all the major party officials hate you and rail on you. And it's not really a position you want to stop at career wise, so the incentives are to go along to get along. Ideally we'd be able to find some well off CPAs that are basically ready to retire and view being a state auditor as an act of public service to do as part of their semi-retirement type gig.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

It does, but it's not easy to set up a system apart from the corruption. The federal government has tried to do it with inspector generals. It doesn't seem to have done a lot (I don't know enough about how they are structured and operate to know if that's because people want to go back into non-IG positions later or if it's just they can't actually prosecute and the DOJ is politicized or what).

For a private sector analogy, if you ever work somewhere with an internal audit department, it's generally a ****** department to work in. If you ask questions because you don't understand something, people get offended. When you push on things you don't understand, you pick up enemies for life. So a lot of people in internal audit, when it comes to the soft corruption type stuff, the incenetive is to go along to get along. Those people just try to ride their time out. The ones that don't end up putting a stop to some bad practices and saving the company money and/or embarrassment, but they also end up putting some people under an unmerited cloud of suspicion and they are hated by anybody involved or that has friends that were involved. Or they end up being hated for stopping "perqs" that people liked to take advantage of.

But the incentives in private business are still much better than in something like State Auditor. For state auditor, you've got to get elected and it's hard to get elected if all the major party officials hate you and rail on you. And it's not really a position you want to stop at career wise, so the incentives are to go along to get along. Ideally we'd be able to find some well off CPAs that are basically ready to retire and view being a state auditor as an act of public service to do as part of their semi-retirement type gig.

You're basically giving my problems with policing the police.

I don't think it's that hard to prosecute enough people to scare off most of the rest, I think you only have to catch a tiny few. (The remainder probably would never be scared off.) Mostly, you just put in a requirement to report. We, as a country, just seem to have gone the Russian route re corruption, and don't care to even try anymore.

 

[kired]

be sure to wear your copper fit elbow sleeve while you rub it on

 

[johnson86-1]

You're basically giving my problems with policing the police.

Maybe. When I think of policing police, I don't think so much about police being on the take but of the problems with balancing supporting them enough that random criminal elements can't negatively impact their career by claiming excessive force without bad apples feeling like they can do what they want because they will be given the doubt absent something like clear video.

The soft corruption issues like fixing tickets and stuff maps, if imperfectly, on the politicians that wouldn't take a bribe but will do favors for non-pecuniary benefits.

The Internal affairs being disliked and distrusted probably maps decently well onto the internal audit type dynamics.

I don't think it's that hard to prosecute enough people to scare off most of the rest, I think you only have to catch a tiny few. (The remainder probably would never be scared off.) Mostly, you just put in a requirement to report. We, as a country, just seem to have gone the Russian route re corruption, and don't care to even try anymore.

I still would like it to be legal to offer a bribe and illegal to take a bribe, and for bribers to be able to sue for a return of 150% of the bribe. I think a lot of small town businesses feel like their choices are go out of business or participate. Even if a small number of bribers take advantage of it, it would probably make a lot of politicians and government officials squirm a bit before accepting a bribe from a new party.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

Maybe. When I think of policing police, I don't think so much about police being on the take but of the problems with balancing supporting them enough that random criminal elements can't negatively impact their career by claiming excessive force without bad apples feeling like they can do what they want because they will be given the doubt absent something like clear video.
.
The soft corruption issues like fixing tickets and stuff maps, if imperfectly, on the politicians that wouldn't take a bribe but will do favors for non-pecuniary benefits.

The Internal affairs being disliked and distrusted probably maps decently well onto the internal audit type dynamics.



I still would like it to be legal to offer a bribe and illegal to take a bribe, and for bribers to be able to sue for a return of 150% of the bribe. I think a lot of small town businesses feel like their choices are go out of business or participate. Even if a small number of bribers take advantage of it, it would probably make a lot of politicians and government officials squirm a bit before accepting a bribe from a new party.

I wasn't even considering cops on the take. Just seems like such high hanging fruit these days, when we can't even punish/fire cops caught on video!

As far as the dislike/distrust dynamic, the bigger problem is this maps onto prosecutors and judges too. And increasingly expanding past even that, to mayors and even higher. Local business being shaked down is probably next, if Russia's and our own history is any guide. If not already.

I'm increasingly seeing corruption as the more important factor in a nation's success. And it don't look good for us.

 

[johnson86-1]

I wasn't even considering cops on the take. Just seems like such high hanging fruit these days, when we can't even punish/fire cops caught on video!

I assumed you were since that sort of mapped on to the politician problem we were discussing. But I don't think that's high hanging fruit. IF they can be caught, the politics don't make that hard (unless the DA is also on the take). It's the "mild" but regular abuse of power that's harder to stop.

As far as the dislike/distrust dynamic, the bigger problem is this maps onto prosecutors and judges too.

And increasingly expanding past even that, to mayors and even higher. Local business being shaked down is probably next, if Russia's and our own history is any guide. If not already.

I'm increasingly seeing corruption as the more important factor in a nation's success. And it don't look good for us.

I think local businesses are already shaken down in a lot of jurisdictions. Places that make it really difficult and expensive to build or open a new business do so in part to increase the opportunities for payoff. Where I live, the local government makes it really hard for developers to do anything unless they are political supporters. ****** developers get to throw up ****** housing left and right and can build box stores with no problem. If a smaller developer tries to do a nice neighborhood or some type of mixed development, they bleed them dry. Won't do inspections timely. Nitpick the **** out of them. There are portions of their zoning and building code that they either enforce contrary to the letter of the law or there are parts they don't enforce unless it's a developer/builder that doesn't support/pay the right people. It doesn't make financial sense for them to sue. It's just a ****** situation and nobody really has the incentives and ability to stop it, so we just keep going along, building future ghettos and box stores, with practically nothing in between.

Then you've got public private partnerships in graft like private ADA litigation. You have plaintiffs attorneys essentially go around looking for minor violations of ADA access type stuff, and then they have a "plaintiff" on retainer essentially that they pay to go visit the building, and then they file suit and try to run up attorneys fees (the actual damages are minimal b/c the violations are so inconsequential). Smaller establishments that don't know the game will try to just fix it without realizing that failing to send a letter immediately stating that they are correcting it and offering a settlement just allows them to run up fees. It's a "small" thing, but it's expensive for those establishments that get hit by it and it's just one of many "small" things that is a drag on productive society.

 

[$altyDawg]

But Hoseman is really powerless, in the grand scheme of things. Other than committee assignments

Lt. Gov is pretty influential in the state Senate, and Hoseman toes the Barbour line. He was put there to control (as much as possible) legislation, and he's doing his job as instructed. Oppose him, even if you're Republican, and you're pretty much blackballed. Ask Melanie Sojourner.

 

[$altyDawg]

I'd like to believe there wasn't a group at all, but his actions prove otherwise.

 

[Bill Shankly]

Who are they? At least they are pro-economic development and create an atmosphere to try and bring home the bacon or whatever. Do you want Chris McDaniel and them who think that shutting off federal money to MS is the answer? There's a level of reality here, that people need to accept.

I'm no gung-ho Haley Barbour or TateR supporter here. But I do see them as the best chance for the state to truly compete. I mean they tried to get the income tax eliminated but instead we got this 'compromise' which still results in competing states being able to say, "Mississippi has an income tax".

I would like to know who they are as well. The only ones that have run have been terrible.

 

[Bill Shankly]

There is and that's why Melanie Sojourner is losing her Senate seat.

Correct. If you drive through the Delta it's pretty obvious.

 

[Sounder68]

Correct. Shad knows that the Hinds Co. DA office is understaffed and overworked and therefore they are the most likely group to 'screw things up' and let some of these folks off the hook. This is exactly why he didn't go directly to the FBI or local Federal DA's office. This way ol Shad can say, "I did my best but those damn Dems in the Hinds Co. DA's office dropped the ball." Hide and watch folks. This will happen.

The best way out for Mississippi taxpayers is for the Feds to take over this investigation completely but even then they will have to remove some of Barbour's cronies from that picture.

One other point on all this... I've been told by someone who knows a lot about this case that some of Shad's public comments about the case (whether intentional or not, but probably intentional), could jeopardize prosecution of anyone involved. So, like you said, I think he's smart enough to know exactly what he was saying and doing - and then blame the DA's office when they can't bring charges.

 

[Bill Shankly]

All I know if it had been me instead of ol' Brett or Phil I would already be in a federal pen over this. That they aren't is pretty revealing, esp Brett.

 

[Dawgg]

be sure to wear your copper fit elbow sleeve while you rub it on

Keeps your pic-sending hand from getting carpal tunnel.

 

[11thEagleFan]

They both belong in prison. And Bryant’s “I didn’t know” defense is comically weak.