"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.

Comments

Shock horror

[Don_dumb]

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.

Are these the senators that wanted the bridge?

[fishyfool]

The 500 million dollar bridge to an uninhabited island? Why does this not surprise me?

Re:Earmarks are good?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

This is the "party of smaller government?"

When Republican's mean 'smaller government' they mean 'spend less on social security'.

Let's Compare!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

we need to call BS on "small government"

[misanthrope101]

Surely there are some conservatives/libertarians who actually believe in small government, but the mainstream Republicans are not among them. The Republican Party is up to its eyeballs in its own mythology--these catchphrases are bandied about, but they are code-words conveying a very specific message, and that message isn't "small government". Less money for the poor, less money for environmental protection, less money for education--yes, yes, and yes, but not less money for the arms contractors, not less money for Haliburton, not less money for handouts to evangelical groups.

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.

Re:we need to call BS on "small government"

[misanthrope101]

Religious discrimination is only against Christians these days.

I'm always fascinated by this mindset. About 85% of the population considers themselves Christian. Pastors fill stadiums with tens of thousands of people, and Christian merchandise flies off the shelves. Even small towns have Christian bookstores, and city after city has 24-hour Christian TV and radio channels. Every politician at every level takes pains to show that they believe in God. A few of those are Jewish, but the vast majority are Christian. People advertise their Christianity on bumper stickers, t-shirts, bracelets, and who knows what else.

Yet to hear it, Christians are a persecuted minority, defiantly worshiping God despite the oppression of the secular authorities. When 85% of the population is Christian, who discriminates against Christians? What you may have meant is that proseletyzing and evangelizing aren't welcomed in schools because many Americans, including many Christian Americans, don't want those things in schools--they think that spiritual matters belong at home or in the church, not in the building kids go to to learn the three Rs. Many American's don't want the school to push a particular faith, because they know that they may not share that faith, at least in the finer points. But instead of saying "evangelizing has been made unwelcome in schools," we hear "Christians are under attack!"

I do think that some schools went overboard in defanging the evangelicals by keeping all Christian matters out of the school. I too think that the treatment needs to be more even-handed. I'd love to see more taught about the religious aspects of American history--how Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, and other Baptists were key in formulating the separation of church and state that modern Baptists want to abandon (or deny the existence of altogether), or how Protestant Ministers were so active in the KKK, for a couple of examples. That stuff would be controversial, but people might have more perspective if they knew about it.

Even as an atheist, I do think that we have gone too far in taking historical aspects of the impact of religion on American life out of schools. But frankly the problem is, as in all countries, the fundamentalists. If that term is too broad, I do apologize. I'm aiming squarely at the biblical literalists, the ones whose worldviews are threatened by modern biology, geology, physics, cosmology, and basically everything from the Enlightenment on down. I don't mind at all if my neighbor believes that Jesus died for their sins, but I do mind if they want the school curriculum changed because they don't think that evolution or the heliocentric solar system can be reconciled with the bible. So if it makes you happy, you can blame the ACLU or a handful of atheists for taking Christianity out of the schools, but it was the nutjob minority within the Christian population that made that possible. Similarly, it's the nutjobs in the Islamic community that is making life so complicated for so many people. Personal faith is never the issue, and "being Christian" was never under attack. No one cares if you have a personal relationship with Jesus, or with Allah or anyone else.

Re:Who are these guys?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Also, I think you need to double-check your math. The proposed bridge, which has not been built, is to cost about $350 million.

Oh, it's only $350 million instead of $500 million? That's OK then!

$350 million for a bridge that will service an island, Gravina, that only has 50 or so residents. That's only, what, $7 million per resident who'll use it? A veritable bargain!

Yep, one heck of a good deal, especially when you consider the incredible inconvenience of a seven minute ferry ride that the residents currently have to endure.

I wonder how much of that $350 million would find its way back to the Senator and his friends in terms of campaign donations and other kickbacks?

Here's an idea. Take that $350 million, give the 50 Gravina residents $100,000 each to put a smile as big as the Joker's on their faces and then spend the other $345 million on something more worthwhile.

It's people like this guy who'll hammer the poor and the infirm for every possible penny, denounce their political opponents for wasteful spending plans and then spend 9-figure sums on white elephants like this bridge.

Re:A little balance Keith?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not mention Slashdot's favorite Congressman, Rick Boucher, co-sponsored legislation to make it legal for corporations to pass off spyware. Yeah, the story actually got covered but the hit piece on Boucher was missing. kdawson posted that story as well. Was Boucher given a pass because kdawson was hired despite not reading Slashdot and thus not knowing it's history (I mean, he posted a story about whether people should have a right to broadband under the Enlightenment topic (since been changed corrected)). Is it because, before slashdot, he had a fairly partisan liberal blog and thus gets to use slashdot as a much larger soapbox to push his political agenda?

Why isn't Al Gore covered more given his connection with the nerd community if that is the standard? Where is the story on the indictment Congressman Jefferson's bribes involving telecommunications in Nigeria if the standard is hit pieces on Congressmen who've said/done something regarding technology?

Is this really what Slashdot wants to become, just another group think site that promotes the propaganda of one political party? The National Enquirer of tech news? I stopped going to kuroshin when it turned more into a political group think site than a site about technology. I've never used digg or reddit but I've heard they've gone that route as well. How I miss the old Slashdot way, way back before it was sold to Andover and then passed to VA Research. It actually used to be a site about computers, technology, Linux and the internet. Kdawson even makes me miss Jon Katz, michael, etc.

Re:This will end well..

[stony3k]

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).

Stuff that matters?

[maroberts]

When I want to read about corrupt politicians, I'll read CNN.
How is this of interest to the Slashdot community?

Unfortunately

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Earmarks are good?

[Black-Man]

These clowns are republicans in name only.

"just as bad"

[misanthrope101]

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.

Re:Earmarks are good?

[Dragonslicer]

This is the "party of smaller government?" "Mentioning Jesus in a speech, that's small government. Doing what Jesus said, that's big government."

Re:Earmarks are good?

[Entropius]

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"?

Re:let's not forget Stevens OTHER inumerable fiasc

[Red Flayer]

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.

All this may be true, but it still doesn't explain why the federal government should be spending $315 million (assuming no overruns) for this small town. That same amount of money would have a much greater return on investment if used for other things.

There is no way that any kind of growth stimulus among a population of 7000 justifies spending $315 million.

also a Republican ...

[SengirV]

I wouldn't expect anything less from the comrades at /.

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 /.'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.

Re:This will end well..

[E 99]

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).

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.

Re:let's not forget Stevens OTHER inumerable fiasc

[Guppy06]

"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.

Re:This will end well..

[Deadstick]

If he believed that prostitution was a good thing, but tried to outlaw it anyway, he would be a hypocrite.

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

Re:This will end well..

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:BZZZT thankyourforplaying...

[jZnat]

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.

Re:BZZZT thankyourforplaying...

[UbuntuDupe]

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?

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 ... pretty soon it adds up to real money!

Re:BZZZT thankyourforplaying...

[shaper]

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.

Re:This will end well..

[spun]

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.