Representative Rehberg seems not to understand what the word transparency means. That, or he is only an advocate of it when it doesn’t apply to his campaign. After filing one campaign report late and another with missing information, Rehberg issued his latest campaign report with 1of 7 donors not disclosing their profession. One of Rehberg’s donors is actually named William Clark (no, really)—and he has donated $6,000 to the campaign, despite a legal limit of $2,500. Well, I guess Representative Rehberg has never let legal limits stop him in the past.
It gets worse for Representative Rehberg, whose accounting is so bad the Federal Elections Commission sent him a warning. Rehberg certainly sounds like someone who should have even more power, doesn’t he?
MEA/MFT President Eric Feaver has been making the rounds, pointing out just how flawed the Montana Policy Institute’s database of alleged state compensation is.
It seems apparent that the Montana Policy Institute is far less interested in providing accurate data than in promoting the idea that state employees are overpaid. Their initial sloppy work, which doesn’t reflect promotions, transition from one position to another, or even people who went from working a few days at the end of a year to full employment the next, gives a terribly misleading picture about compensation for state workers. It’s hard to take an organization devoted to transparency very seriously, when they don’t mind presenting transparently false information to the public.
Those radical socialists at Bloomberg News are reporting that the world’s wealthy elite are hiding as much as $32 trillion in offshore accounts across the world. McKinsey & Co. economist James Henry said that this is creating “a huge black hole in the world economy. The lost tax revenue implied by our estimates is huge.”
I noticed last week that the Great Falls Tribune has been posting material from statewide blogs in the Sunday edition of the paper. It’s an interesting idea (and they’ve made some fascinating choices for inclusion), but how about throwing a link in the direction of the people whose content is being used? That’s basic netiquette, no?
In its ongoing coverage of the ethics of drone warfare, the New York Times philosophy corner The Stone offers a fascinating discussion from Plato, in his story of Gyges of Lydia. In the story, Gyges finds an invisible ring, ultimately using it to seduce the Queen and murder the King to gain power. In the words of John Kaag and Sarah Krepps, “the technological advantage provided by the ring ends up serving as the justification of its use,” a fair comparison to contemporary arguments in support of drones.
Because it can’t all be good stuff, I thought I’d include a truly terrible argument. In what seems an almost transparent effort to get traffic for a terrible argument, Jonathan Merritt argues in The Atlantic that people really shouldn’t boycott businesses for moral reasons. He writes, “I don’t care how my dry cleaner votes. I just want to know if he/she can press my Oxfords without burning my sleeves.” I guess I prefer Martin Luther King’s argument: “"The purpose of … direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”