Hi KT; Re: "... rebuilding the gulf coast will be thieves' nirvana."
I just read the fascinating book "On The Take", by William J. Chambliss which is a sociologist's look at corruption in Seattle Washington. There was a remarkably large amount of collusion between government and various illegal stuff like prostitution and even money laundering and fencing, but begins with a subject discussed a lot here recently, poker. It seems that back when the marginal tax rates were 90%, there were a lot of doctors and lawyers who took their pay in cash and gambled with it rather than give it to the gov. And they didn't really mind losing it to Sociology professors.
A review:
...
Using events that occurred mostly in downtown Seattle, Chambliss argues that the roots of graft were in laws that were selectively enforced.
...
Surprisingly, the institution most responsible for cracking the crime network was not the media, but - don't fall off your chair - Richard Nixon and the Republicans. Chambliss contends that nationally, until the 1970s, nearly all campaign contributions from crime networks went to Democrat politicians, and that Nixon was determined to turn the tables.
washingtonfreepress.org
The most interesting part to me was where he described how the two political parties rely on illegal donations from criminal activity. In return, each party tends to prosecute only the criminals that contribute to the other party. This happens at all levels of the government, from the county up to the nation. The book was written in the 1970s, but it is remarkably accurate in its descriptions of what to expect with changes in the White House. That is, expect a Democrat administration to look under the rug in Republican controlled regions and vice-versa.
At the moment, the Republicans have the Presidency, so the US attorneys are busy cracking down on corruption in Democratic states. That includes Louisiana as was recently reported in the papers. Places that are controlled by only one party for a very long time can end up completely corrupted, like Chicago.
Anyway, it was quite a read. I suspect that it's a classic. But it's not terribly slanted against one party or the other, and is actually sympathetic to all the guys just trying to make a buck or get a hand of poker in, so it may not be so popular with the people who have a gong to bang.
-- Carl |
