Slashdot Mirror
"Tubes" Senator Being Investigated For Corruption
DragonTHC writes "Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, is being investigated in a federal corruption probe that has implicated his son Ben. Part of the case involves a fishing co-op whose members allegedly paid Ben Stevens $500,000 to get a federal bailout from his father." The other Alaskan senator, also a Republican, is under a cloud as well.
A politician, corrupt. - I am flabergasted.
The only unbelievable thing about this is the number of people who will claim that "this politician can't have done anything wrong, he is a good man", despite the fact he *is* a politician.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
The 500 million dollar bridge to an uninhabited island? Why does this not surprise me?
Enjoy Every Sandwich
If you're going to post this, where are the stories about Senator Feinstein directing more than a billion dollars toward a company her husband controls? Or how about Harry Reid's son's and son in law all being lobbyists, one even lobbying him?
How about slashdot go back to, oh, I dunno... technology instead of hiring editors who are nothing but partisan shills?
Could someone please explain to a non-US resident why these two politicans are of interest to Geeks & Nerds.
Reading the article would suggest that the two in question are beyond what would be considered a normal retirement age.
ZombieEngineer
This is the "party of smaller government?"
When Republican's mean 'smaller government' they mean 'spend less on social security'.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Slashdot summary: He's a Republican.
Linked article: He's a Republican with many years of experience who is running for reelection.
Slashdot summary: Senator is being investigated in a federal corruption probe
Linked article: Senator is "facing scrutiny" from federal investigators. He is thriving on the setbacks, and political analysts say nothing has happened that would cause him to "lose his perch" yet.
Slashdot summary: The investigation has implicated his son, Ben.
Linked article: Ben's office was raided by the FBI in an entirely separate incident over a year ago, and he hasn't been charged with a crime. (Sounds like something Slashdotters would condemn...like when accused software/music pirates get raided, but are never charged with a crime.)
Slashdot summary: A fishing co-op allegedly paid $500,000 to get a federal bailout from Ben and his father.
Linked article: No mention of anything about a fishing co-op or a federal bailout.
Slashdot summary: The other Alaskan senator is also "under a cloud". It doesn't mention what this cloud is, or even give her name, but it's sure to mention that she's a Republican.
Linked article: The only mention of the other Alaskan senator is that her party welcomes the challenge from Democrats, who were unable to unseat her. There is no mention of her being under any kind of "cloud" in either this article, or her Wikipedia article.
Perhaps 'smaller government' is code for smaller ethics, smaller worldview...smaller voter turnout. Vote the issues people!! Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is just fun to say smaller! Smaller smaller smaller!
but if you want seriously bad, forget congress and look at the paper shufflers around them, they will do ANYTHING to increase their little kingdoms.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
It's the same when they say "we believe in religious freedom!" -- what they mean is "We believe in the right of Christians to discriminate against non-Christians in hiring, housing, and so on," NOT "people should be free to practice their own religion." The phrase you're looking for is "glittering generalities." No one is going to argue against freedom, just as few will argue for big government. When you actually get down to what they really believe, it's pretty repugnant at times. These phrases get thrown around because they sound good and they build a false sense of consensus.
Why do we investigate politicians for corruption *AFTER* they fuck things up, instead of investigating politicians for competence *BEFORE* they fuck things up?
They're called elections.
No, just kidding! That would require an informed public, which would result from an inquisitive media that is independent of the political system and advocates for the people.
Mod +1 funny.
Democrats say all Republicans are liars. Republicans say all Democrats are liars. And this is the only time both of them speak the truth.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
News at 11.
But is an example of that fact going to lead to an interesting discussion on Slashdot?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If I had to choose between a Senator who hires prostitutes or one who was elected by dead people, I'd choose the former. But then again, as a libertarian I don't see a problem w/ prostitution, I guess... :P
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
I don't get it either. If he enjoys inviting a few prostitutes and throw parties that rivals Roman orgies, who cares? If he wants to be my hero, he'll make it available on pay-TV and let the revenue go to the state's money box.
You won't find me in the libertarian corner, though. Still, what he does in his spare time is his business, not mine. I don't care about a politicians personal preferences. I care about his actions towards and for the country.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What matters is not really his personal life, but that he was a hypocrite. On one hand he visited prostitutes and on the other, he championed the cause of many "family"-oriented laws. It shows him as a basically dishonest person, and that's what bothers people (including me).
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi
When I want to read about corrupt politicians, I'll read CNN.
How is this of interest to the Slashdot community?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Both parties are kind of two sides of the same coin. They are both for big government, just different big government. Republicans are for big government in things like military and infrastructure spending (needed or not). Democrats are for big government in things like entitlement payments. Likewise neither party is really for personal freedom. They both want to you be free to do things they like and prevented from doing things they do. Democrats are all about the freedom for things like gay marriage, but want to make it illegal to say things that hurt others feelings (hate speech laws). Republicans are happy to protect your right to be a bigot, but like hell they want to let gays get married.
Now of course there are exceptions to these rules, and if you are voting for someone in the major parties that's what you have to look at, is their politics not the party politics because BOTH parties are for big government and BOTH are for restricting personal freedom. You can also vote libertarian, at least assuming they'll run a candidate that isn't a complete nutjob in your area.
These clowns are republicans in name only.
On a side note, I'd agree that the Democrats are probably just as corrupt, on average. Just as unresponsive to voter desires. But it wasn't a Democratic president that signed off on torture, gutted habeus corpus, claims to be exempt from any laws he doesn't like, put Americans under surveillance in direct violation of written law, and started an open-ended war with no clearly defined objectives that, and which became a terrorist recruiter's wet dream. So the Republican party has the standard complement of corruption and hubris, true, but then you add in all this other stuff, and the "just as bad" warning rings a bit false. Corruption + "we have to redefine torture so what we're doing isn't torture" is not the same thing as corruption alone.
For being a member of a tech website, you are certainly acting like a cluser. It really is quite simple to turn off the politics section. It isn't rocket surgery.
But you knew that, didn't you?
I am, unlike you, actually quite interested in the corruption of this government and our supposed "civil servants." Feel free to bury your head in the sand of ignorance, but don't drag me down with you.
(Sorry for feeding the troll)
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
"the inafmous "Bridge to Nowhere" that would have costmillions and allowed a small town (can you even call it a town when there's not even 1000 people lviing there? I'd say a village) to save itself a bit of travelling by crossing the river directly."
Sorry, Ted Stevens may be a cranky old man, but you dissapoint me by blatantly lying.
The city the bridge is being built at has over 7,000 people. The reason it does not have more is there is a land shortage. Much land is available on the island (OCEAN, NOT RIVER). However, understandably, not being able to drive to work in the morning tends to make people not want to live there. There are many locations in many states where development could only take off once a bridge was built so people could drive around. A ferry just isn't the same, and you know it.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
I don't care about a politicians personal preferences. I care about his actions towards and for the country.
Well, oddly enough, most voters don't think like that it. It's really amazing. Politicians will get kicked out of office for taking hundreds of thousands in bribes, for affairs, for corrupt redirection of money to their friends, for having hired an illegal immigrant...
But if they allocate BILLIONS of dollars to bridges to nowhere, to farm subsidies so we have to endure the blight known as HFCS, to military equipment the military doesn't want, to self-glorifying make-work programs, or whatnot, no one cares.
Some of the things in the first list are bad, of course, but none of them even come close to the second list.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
If the majority of the Republican Party is "Republicans in name only", then perhaps we should define them as "mainstream Republicans" and classify the few honest ones as "Republicans in name only"?
I'll 'splain it to you.
The problem isn't that he indulges himself in sexual peculiarities. The problem is that he does it himself but wants to deny the same rights to other people.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There is no way that any kind of growth stimulus among a population of 7000 justifies spending $315 million.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I wouldn't expect anything less from the comrades at /.
/. ?
/.'s bias is very clear. Almost like the Washingotn Post and New York Times claiming that they are "totally objective" in their reporting, when to anyone with a brain, they are clearly not.
When are the stories of democratic corruption coming to
BTW - Stevens is scum and should be tarred and feathered. But then again, so should a lot of politicians. All I know is that
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Nonsense. That's like saying that people who advocate morality are hypocrites unless they themselves are perfect. If he believed that prostitution was a good thing, but tried to outlaw it anyway, he would be a hypocrite. If he thought it was a bad thing, and tried to outlaw it anyway, but succumbed to it anyway, he would not be a hypocrite. But he probably never expressed an opinion on prostitution, as it's not really the subject of federal law. The idea that someone is a hypocrite because they hire a prostitute while simultaneously being against prenatal murder and homosexual marriage is convoluted at best.
The human mind is fortunately so divided that it can contemplate the ideal and the true before it itself embodies those things.
"The reason it does not have more is there is a land shortage."
We're talking about Alaska, right?
"There are many locations in many states where development could only take off once a bridge was built so people could drive around."
And this makes it a federal issue why? If Juneau paid back slightly less in their Permanent Fund, they could have paid for their own bridge themselves (maybe even two or three) without having to get a pork earmark in Washington.
"I mean, it may be selective journalism (ya know, you only hear about the bad ones), but why do we have corrupt politicians?"
We get crooks because we want crooks. We consistently vote for politicians who promise and shamelessly deliver all the pork earmarks they can get their hands on. Our biggest question on election day is "How much money can you get me?"
When you get right down to it, it's not that Stevens took a kickback, it's that he didn't share this one with the rest of the district.
How about if he got elected by deluding a specific segment of voters into thinking he stood with them on "family values"?
Actually, the word is not hypocrite but demagogue -- a man who promotes principles he considers false to people he considers fools.
rj
You are saying "We should be free to do what I like, but not what I don't like." That's fine, it's ok to think that certain freedoms should be limited, but don't try and pretend that there's some difference. A large part of freedom of speech is freedom of unpopular speech. It's the right to say things that offend people, that many people don't want to hear. Restricting it can lead to a whole lot of speech being restricted. For example we have a lot of honour that is done at the expense of religion, particularly Christianity since we have such heavy Christian roots in our society and thus it is something that people will get (Buddhist humour wouldn't work so well, nobody would understand it). However often it offends a large amount of people. Well, you can start running afoul of hate speech laws in cases like that. Even worse you can do it simply through expressing an opinion. Perhaps you think Christianity is a retarded superstition, one that has lead to amazing genocides in its name. However if that opinion is expressed in a manner that is offensive, and such a thing is illegal, you could wind up in jail for it.
Now you may consider that all ok. We don't have unlimited personal freedoms, and indeed can't since personal freedoms must be balanced against having those infringe upon the freedoms of others. However don't pretend that your particular side of politics (whatever that may be) does it out of some special moral righteousness. It's the same deal all the way around: They want to restrict you from doing what they don't like, allow you to do what they do. What falls in to those categories varies depending on the political group, but it's the same shit.
For most issues, there are plenty go good arguments both ways. Yes, believe it or not there are good arguments against gay marriage. Doesn't mean you have to buy them (I don't) but they are valid argument, not just someone screaming about "God says it's evil!" Same thing with hate speech laws. You clearly have sold yourself on the arguments for them, you'd do well to consider the arguments against them. It's never a situation of "This is good, there is no harm." All action has harm, the question is does the benefits outweigh the harm.
I know plenty of white trash that take advantage of social programs. What the radical right fails to comprehend, however, is that discontinuing these programs (like WIC, food stamps, welfare, etc) might save some money today, but it'll cost a lot more later (in terms of uncompensated health care, crime, civil unrest).
I'll use the health care system as an example. I know that a lot of conservatives would rather cut an arm off than consider a Canadian-style universal health care system, and their main argument is that our tax burden would go up. To which I say this: Who the hell do you think is paying for the uninsured NOW? Just because you don't have health insurance doesn't mean you don't get hit by a bus, or cancer, or necrotizing fasciitis, or $EXPENSIVE_HEALTH_CONDITION. Billions of taxpayer dollars go into uncompensated care pools, Medicaid, and Medicare. So we're already footing the bill for it, why don't we see if maybe we can cut out the bullshit and provide preventative/managed care up front with that money?
Similarly, doing away with Welfare doesn't make poor people (and the problems they have/cause) disappear. Removing food stamps doesn't mean people stop getting hungry. Removing Medicare doesn't mean people stop getting old/deathly ill/fully disabled.
It'd be great if none of these programs were necessary. While I'm at it, I'd like a pony.
Blaming "non-whites" for causing the issue is the biggest racist cop-out you can use. Are minorities over-represented in these programs? Sure. Are they over-represented in the population that these programs are intended to serve? Sure. Does this mean that non-whites are too stupid to make a living? Hell no.
People call liberals "impractical". Kettle, it's Pot. You're black.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
We all know you reach nothing in politics with just fancy principles unless you're willing to break and rape them. You need to lie, cheat and fight your way to the top! Those at the top are all bastards.
Quit acting surprised, you know all this
Well, my liberal side ends at the personal level. Because I'm very much for state influence in certain other areas, like health care, wellfare, education, and even the socializing of certain core basic production means (power, gas, water, phone, sewage, public transport, etc) and certain basic food and shelter needs.
The reason is, oddly, very free market. I've seen it more than once that large corporations can have a decisive edge over startups because they can negotiate better terms for those basic production resources (yes, even public transport), thus crippling rising competition.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's very simple. Our system positively selects for corruption, and it always will so long as the support of a few wealthy men is necessary to successfully compete in an election. I volunteered in the finance office of a campaign for governor, and you have no idea just how expensive a campaign is and just how much that money hinges on a short list of generous donors until you've gone over the public finance disclosures of your candidate and their opponents. Only the super, super rich can self-finance.
With that sort of pressure, corruption is inevitable. With the exception of a few wealthy ideologues, nobody gives money to a campaign without expecting some sort of favorable legislation passed for them. No candidate can survive without this sort of favor swapping. The best you can do is to decide who you're willing to compromise yourself to.
Take Hillary Clinton for example. Back when her husband was President, she was instrumental in getting the White House back away from that horrible bankruptcy reform bill that would eventually get passed in 2005. You can read more about this in "The Two-Income Trap" because the author of the book was instrumental in convincing her it was a bad idea. The bill contains such gems as prioritizing the repayment of credit card debt before child support and alimony payments. Clinton was horrified by the bill originally and promised to defeat "that awful bill" which was "unfair to women and children."
Now a few years later after successfully running for the Senate after receiving $140,000 of campaign contributions from banking executives, Senator Clinton voted in favor of the bill when it came up unchanged in 2001 and in every other year it was introduced until its passage in 2005. This is what corruption is all about -- bills for bills.
Even the most principled politician has to hold their nose and do something terrible in exchange for getting to prioritize the issues that really matter to them. For some politicians, this eventually eats away at everything they did care about until nothing is left but the matters of power and money. For other politicians, pork spending, anti-consumer legislation, and corporate welfare were their highest principles to begin with.
This sort of thing happens constantly, and it will happen until we can somehow kill the relationship between big donations and a successful bid for office. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is dead set on the idea that money equals free speech and forgets that the point of free speech is to give all citizens a chance to air their views. With big money being thrown around like this, the voices and opinions of the little guy mean absolutely jack outside of the voting booth. This means that some issues will never be properly examined (like copyright extension) because the few powerful interests have well bribed both sides on the issue.
This is why almost all of our elections are about "culture war" nonsense. It's a distraction from the real issues about government power and the spending of our tax dollars are decided with phone calls, industry drafted bills, and big fat checks. You just wave gay marriage or video game violence and the voters look that way while the other hand is busy digging in the graft.
I'm in favor of the latest raft of public election financing draft bills. You agree not to accept any money from private individuals, and in exchange the government matches what your opponent spends. The best part is that since they're voluntary, the Supreme Court can't knock them down without extremely tortured logic. To qualify, all you have to do is get a certain critical mass of signatures, and then you spend the entire election trying to speak to the people instead of spending (literally) 70-90% of your time begging for money. Trust me; this is what an election is really like -- candidates are just panhandlers trading dignity for much larger sums of cash than a homeless person. It's disheartening to watch.
Unti
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That sort of thing has absolutely no basis in the federal government. Unless it was a bridge from one state or country to another, the federal government should stay the fuck away. This was an Alaskan issue that should have been dealt with and paid for by the Alaskan government. Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to construct such a bridge in just Alaska? Don't cite the state commerce clause because that is in between states, not just a single state.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
There may be things that Steven's has done wrong or that you don't like but the "BILLIONS of dollars to bridges to nowhere" bit is a commonly parroted bit of misinformation. Do you even know where the "bridge to nowhere" even is?
... pretty soon it adds up to real money!
I was using "bridges to nowhere" as a metaphor for pork barrel spending in general.
Anyone who has been to the area of the proposed bridge will agree that it needs to be built. It is in Ketchikan, Alaska. Ketchikan is completely out of space. Land prices have skyrocketed because there is no land. On the other side of the proposed bridge is land just waiting to be developed. Oh, and the AIRPORT is on the other side of the "bridge to nowhere". Do you think it might be nice if they could drive to the airport instead of having to take a ferry?
Oh, I'm sure it would be nice. I'm sure the people there would LOVE it. It would also be nice if we had a great new museum in Poughkeepsie, or a soil enrichment program in Hicksville, Alabama, or the job traning center in Bethesda. Everyone thinks their own little pork project is ABSOLUTELY vital to the health of the nation. I heard the military thinks we need more military spending too. I'm sure it would make sense to ANYONE with a remote understanding of the facts.
But it's because everyone has their little corner of the world that NEEDS more free money that spending gets out of control.
A billion here, a billion there
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Anyone who has been to the area of the proposed bridge will agree that it needs to be built. It is in Ketchikan, Alaska. Ketchikan is completely out of space. Land prices have skyrocketed because there is no land. On the other side of the proposed bridge is land just waiting to be developed. Oh, and the AIRPORT is on the other side of the "bridge to nowhere". Do you think it might be nice if they could drive to the airport instead of having to take a ferry?
Based on your post, I now know that Ketchikan, Alaska has a local land development problem of their own making that they need to solve with their own money. Thanks for clearing that up.
Anyone who has been to the area of the proposed bridge will agree that it needs to be built.
Agreed. But that isn't the problem. The problem is he was trying to build it with taxpayers money! Just as he does with all his pork projects.
Ketchikan is completely out of space. Land prices have skyrocketed because there is no land. On the other side of the proposed bridge is land just waiting to be developed.
Here's a brilliant idea, why don't we make the people that are going to benefit from the bridge pay for it! The developers that want to develop the land, and they'll pay the cost on to the people that buy the homes and businesses on the other side of the bridge. And if they can't make their money back then maybe they shouldn't develop it until they can?
But the far easier solution is to take some bribes and then re-route some taxpayer funds to do it "for free."
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
That same amount of money would have a much greater return on investment if used for other things
Yeah, such as not having been taken from the people that earned it in the first place.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
No connection between "family values" and "sanctity of marriage" and cheating on your wife with a hooker? Please. I bet my wife would have something to say about that if I tried the argument.
Some of our minds are more divided than others, apparently.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Classic failure modes of the free market, including imbalance of information, natural monopoly, and externalities are all exploited by large and powerful players in the market. Regulation is necessary to keep the market free. An unregulated market is quickly dominated by the most ruthless and powerful players, becoming unfree.
Even without considering the failure modes of the free market, Pareto efficiency is a regressive measurement. One person owning everything and the rest of us owning nothing is still Pareto optimal. And that is the limit towards which all unregulated free markets tend. The more money one has, the more power one has to influence the workings of the market, allowing one to acquire more money, and more power in an unregulated positive feedback loop. Government operates as a negative feedback loop, keeping the market from becoming dominated by the largest players.
Libertarianism is merely disguised propaganda for the status quo. Libertarians do not want a free, fair, and equitable world, they want an oligarchy or feudal state with themselves as the landed gentry.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Check my Slashdot ID. 4 digits. I'm a computer programmer. I know C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, bash, csh, C#, etc. I use Linux at home. Okay, have I established my creds? I worked for Eazel. I spoke once at an O'Reilly Conference.
I'm a Democrat. I can't stand Ted Stevens. But, seriously, why is everyone so upset over his comparing the Internet to a series of tubes?
I refer to my Internet connection as a "pipe". I really, really don't believe the Internet is at all like a truck. I agree that there is a limited amount of data that can fit on an internet pipe. I would like it if someone pointed out the vast amounts of dark fiber to Mr. Stevens (compare it to a really huge tube with only a trickle of water running through it, if you think it'd help), but his analogy was *correct*.
But, I think it's a bit ridiculous to be making fun of him for using "tubes" instead of "pipes". Are we really upset with him because he's uncomfortable and bad with words? Isn't our problem with him that he's nerdy?
Bad news: so am I.
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
Unfortunately, ever since Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the Interstate Commerce Clause means any damn thing the federal government wants it to mean.
The people of Alaska could expect "value" back for their taxes. But they're getting far more value back from the rest of us taxpayers than they send.