About Those Investigations. . . .

From Andrew Sullivan, linking to this post at The Economist purporting to explain the 7:1 ratio of investigations by the current DOJ of Democrats over Republicans.

This thesis would also explain why there is no variation at the national and state levels; statewide offices offer sufficient scope for corruption in any state that any illicit activity is likely to bring Justice swooping down.

And they're not being investigated.

There's also a flaw in the initial argument:

But it seems to me that there is another, at least equally parsimonious explanation: local officials in cities are, as far as I know, overwhelmingly disproportionately Democrats. Cities are also much more likely to be targeted by corruption investigations, for two reasons: they offer more opportunities for corruption, because they provide more services, and officials are much more removed from the local population; and they offer opportunities for bigger thefts.

Well, a couple of flaws. The writer (Megan McArdle? Sullivan refers to her as "Megan" and I don't follow the blogs at Economist) uses "cities" as her baseline, but goes on to discuss small cities and towns, which are as likely to be Republican as Democrat (at least in the Midwest, more likely). And maybe in New York officials are more removed from the polity, but not in Chicago, where there's a ward committeeman's office (at least one) in every ward, and an alderman's office or two (just about three blocks away from me I have a complex -- state rep, state senator, alderman, congresswoman, the works). We can walk in anytime during the day -- and do. (Yeah, and we still have scandals. Strangely enough, the mayor appears to be honest. So far.)

Oh, and about the bigger thefts -- how much is unaccounted for in Iraq? $10 billion?

Under the category: "Grasping at straws."