FBI, IRS Raid Home of Sen. Ted Stevens

A while back we discussed the corruption investigation aimed at Alaska Sen. Ted "series of tubes" Stevens. A number of readers sent us word that the home of Sen. Stevens was raided earlier today by agents of the FBI and the IRS. The focus of the raid was a remodeling project at Stevens's home and the involvement of VECO, an oil company.

Comments

The same man...

[Bananatree3]

who had the bridge to nowheres built. But since this article doesn't pertain to that, I won't go there...

Re:The same man...

[hax0r_this]

Actually just so we're clear, the so called bridges to nowhere weren't built.

Also describing them as "bridges to nowhere" is somewhat like describing the first Transcontinental Railroad as a "railroad to nowhere". One of the bridges in question was probably a pointless waste of money, the other would have connected a city of 300,000 people and skyrocketing property prices to a large area of undeveloped land.

It may also be instructive to note that Ben Stevens (the son of Ted Stevens, and another alaskan politician) owned a (miniscule, we're talking several acres out of hundreds of thousands, but still) portion of the aforementioned undeveloped land.
>Oh, also I'm from Anchorage, not just some guy who sits around all day reading about political issues in irrelevant semi-states.

Re:The same man...

[Nephilium]

Then why not build it with your own/your wife's family/the city's money instead of mine?

Nephilium

Re:The same man...

[Frumious Wombat]

Hey! Confusion is a quite relevant state.

Re:The same man...

[SnapShot]

If they property prices were increasing to much you'd think they could buy their own damn bridge rather than have the American taxpayer buy them one. That might mean they have to raise taxes, though and I know how Republican's always expect other people to pay for their pet projects.

Re:The same man...

[dircha]

"...the other would have connected a city of 300,000 people and skyrocketing property prices to a large area of undeveloped land."

I see. And this second bridge, unlike the first, is a not a bridge to "nowhere" because it connects to a large area of ...undeveloped, unoccupied land?

Thanks for clarifying.

We wouldn't want the real estate developers to have to finance their own development. Nosiree! That's what hard working american men and women are for... to finance real estate development that they'd never be able to afford themselves.

Go to hell, much? Thanks, bye.

Re:The same man...

[ucblockhead]

The first transcontinental railroad was never a "railroad to nowhere". It was built twenty years after millions of people had already moved to the west coast of the United States.

Re:The same man...

[syzler]

One of the bridges in question was probably a pointless waste of money, the other would have connected a city of 300,000 people and skyrocketing property prices to a large area of undeveloped land.

I would also like to point out that even though this may be an insignificant number to people accustomed to the over crowded cities of the lower 48, this city's population is half the population of the state. Alaska may be 2.5 times larger than Texas, however our largest population center is land locked by military bases, the Cook Inlet, and the Chugach State Park. The bridge to nowhere would reduce a two hour one way commute to just a few minutes from the currently under developed land to downtown Anchorage.
 
I saw a few posts that talked about the state paying Alaskans every year. The one to two grand paid by the state PFD does not provide much help to a middle income family trying to buy a home when a vacant 1.5 acre lot in Anchorage sells for about $750,000 (just went on the market a few days ago).

Re:The same man...

[Anonymous Coward]

And by the way, do you know why it is going to cost $315 million for a bridge going across a 2000 ft waterway? Because the people didn't want it to affect cruise ships using the waterway (even though it would only cause them to go about 30 miles to circumnavigate the island) and because the planners refuse to use the shortest path to the airport. In any reasonable place they wouldn't decide to build a suspension bridge. They would use a truss bridge or a cantilever bridge with narrow spans for $5-$10 million and tell the damn cruise ships to go around. That is, unless the federal government was paying for it.

Re:The same man...

[SnapShot]

Wait a minute. Why is it flamebait to declare that Republicans are opposed to taxes but still want to spend tax money on their pet projects. Am I wrong? Since WWII the U.S. debt has increased 3.2% per year under Democratic presidents and 9.7% per year under Republican administrations.

Re:The same man...

[justinlee37]

even though it would only cause them to go about 30 miles to circumnavigate the island

I wonder what the long-term expenses of that would be. Maybe making the bridge is ultimately cheaper than paying for all that gasoline, thus ultimately benefiting the economy?

You'd need some actual figures to determine that.

Re:The same man...

[Anonymous Coward]

So logically they should receive something near to what they paid to the Highway Trust Fund, right? Alaska receives $4.06 for every dollar paid. That is $3.06 too much.

What do most places do when they want to build bridges? They raise taxes and impose tolls. It might be hard for Alaskans to believe that sometimes you have to pay money to your government rather than getting handouts for public services, but it is the truth. And once they realize this, they will be much more careful with the funds. A $315 million bridge will look a lot less sensible when the federal contribution drops from $223 million to $55 million.

Re:The same man...

[CrimsonAvenger]

The first transcontinental railroad was never a "railroad to nowhere". It was built twenty years after millions of people had already moved to the west coast of the United States.

I agree that the transcontinental railroad wasn't a "railroad to nowhere". But it wasn't built 20 years after "millions of people had already moved to the west coast of the United States.". Fewer than half a million people moved to the West Coast during the emigration period from about 1840-1860.

Re:The same man...

[hax0r_this]

The spread in cost of living in Alaska is also more than $1-2k. And its not like that money is paid by the federal government, it is a dividend on money that Alaska has invested (originally comandeered from oil companies).

Also, since I seem not to have mentioned it and no one else has either, the biggest problem with the Anchorage bridge is that it may or may not actually be technically feasible due to the crappy muddy bottom, very long distance it would span, and lots of floating ice. Thats why it costs so much, and simultaneously about the best reason to be hesitant to blow a lot of cash on it.

Re:The same man...

[khallow]

Oh, this is stupid. The airport is on the Anchorage side, ie, the developed side. People already have access. And there's nothing on the other side. See this map. If there is a need for people to cross that river, then put in a ferry or a cheaper bridge. It definitely is a bridge to nowhere.

Re:The same man...

[Copid]

The spread in cost of living in Alaska is also more than $1-2k. And its not like that money is paid by the federal government, it is a dividend on money that Alaska has invested (originally comandeered from oil companies).

Of course, I wouldn't dispute that it's their money by most reasonable definitions. I think that most people would agree. The reason they point it out, though, is that it seems pretty clear that for projects like that, a lot of people seem to think that their local contribution should be 0%. I don't mind federal spending on local infrastructure, especially when it develops into a national asset, but I would expect to see a state dig into its coffers at least a little bit before drinking from the federal money trough, if only for the principle of it.

Re:The same man...

[Solandri]

I see. And this second bridge, unlike the first, is a not a bridge to "nowhere" because it connects to a large area of ...undeveloped, unoccupied land?

Infrastructure is generally the responsibility of government, not private enterprise. If a city feels that it is becoming overcrowded and needs to expand into adjacent lands, it will plan and fund infrastructure to support that expansion.

That said, it is common for developers to offer to pay for part or all of the infrastructure. They have a financial incentive for the development to proceed, and infrastructure costs are often the biggest disincentive for city governments. So developers do what they can to minimize or eliminate that cost for cities.

We wouldn't want the real estate developers to have to finance their own development. Nosiree! That's what hard working american men and women are for... to finance real estate development that they'd never be able to afford themselves.

While it may make one feel better to "stick it to the developers" by making them pay for the additional infrastructure, the truth is that they don't pay for it. The people buying the new housing or office space do. The costs just get passed onto them in the form of increased prices, home association fees, property taxes, and/or mello-roos.

So since the people are going to be paying for it anyway, the question then becomes how do you apportion the cost. One line of reasoning is that the people buying in the new development should pay for it since they are the primary beneficiaries. Another line of reasoning is that everyone should pay because the people in the currently existing city are secondary beneficiaries (less crowding, access to facilities in the new development, more choice in living/working area, etc). The fairest solution is probably a combination of the two. But the point is that making taxpayers pay for it isn't as ludicrous as you're making it out to be; taxpayers are the eventual beneficiaries and they end up paying for it in the end anyway. The logistics of how you make them pay for it is just a matter of shifting responsibility for obtaining the funding.

Re:The same man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since WWII the U.S. debt has increased 3.2% per year under Democratic presidents and 9.7% per year under Republican administrations. Here's a cool fact you can use to impress your friends:

It's actually Congress that is in charge of determining the federal budget, not the president!!

Re:The same man...

[Isotopian]

Agreed with the parent. As someone who has been to Ketchikan many times, the opposition to this bridge just shows how ignorant most people are of the situation. Ketchikan's downtown area is literally built up the side of a mountain, and people are forced to live miles and miles away from the town area because there's simply no place left to go but out into the wilderness area.

The bridge would be a godsend to that area, which, despite it's small size, brings in a substantial amount of revenue via tourism, and is not insignificant by any means.

Re:The same man...

[JonathanR]

...does not provide much help to a middle income family trying to buy a home when a vacant 1.5 acre lot in Anchorage sells for about $750,000 A middle income family needs to buy 1.5 acres for their home? In a major population centre? For what? No wonder there is no room left in the city. The traditional Aussie 1/4 acre suburban lot has proven to be more than enough for most families, which would bring the cost down to (roughly) $125k, and that's not an outrageous amount.

Re:The same man...

[GayBliss]

The one to two grand paid by the state PFD does not provide much help to a middle income family trying to buy a home when a vacant 1.5 acre lot in Anchorage sells for about $750,000 (just went on the market a few days ago).


Do you realize how large 1.5 acres is? Especially considering it's within a city. A standard inner city house lot is 5000 square feet in many cities. 1.5 acres is 65340 square feet, or the equivalent of 13 house lots! That's a house, with a yard. So $750,000 divided by 13 is a mere $57,392. Sounds like a bargain to me for a home in the city.

Put an apartment complex on that piece of land and you can easily have over 100 homes.

Re:The same man...

[__aajwxe560]

And why would a family starting out need 1.5 acre tract of land in an urban area of 260k people (http://anchorage.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm)? I don't claim to know anything about the geography of the area, but a quick search of realtor.com shows that anyone can buy a .25 acre piece of land for an average of $25k, or half an acre for $22k-$50k. As a middle income family, you can apparently get yourself a starter home of 1200sq feet for around $180k ($100k for a starter condo). If you want to consider moving to the 'burbs, just like any other city, it of course gets much cheaper.

Now lets compare this to say, many other American cities. Anchorage has an "Owner-occupied housing units" rate of 60%, which is among the highest in the country (again, areaconnect.com/statistics.htm says that Tucson is 53%, Oklahoma City is close at 59%, Las Vegas is also 59%, Orlando is 40.7%, Boston is 32%, Syracuse is 40%, Dallas is 43%, Los Angeles is 38%, Manchester NH is 46%). So this tells me that people are having less of a hard time achieving home ownership in Anchorage than just about any other part of the country.

I'm not trying to flame you as I am sure many people there go through the same struggles as elsewhere, but just trying to put everything into a bit of perspective. Anchorage isn't the $40k housing market some people in the lower 48 might expect, but it seems easier to achieve personal home ownership there than most other urban cities in the country. I suspect if you start to consider suburbs, just like any other city, the numbers skew much differently.

Re:The same man...

[Dragonslicer]

It's actually Congress that is in charge of determining the federal budget, not the president!! You must be old here.

Re:The same man...

[xheliox]

"That is, unless the federal government was paying for it."

It's not the federal government that pays.. it's you and me.

Re:The same man...

[phossie]

On one hand, you're right. On the other, you clearly don't know much about the realities of economic development in Alaska. Most of Alaska is wilderness. To develop modern local economies, modern "conveniences" like roads and docks and harbors are required. And in a wilderness those projects are incredibly expensive. Count the number of towns in Alaska. Then count the number of towns with roads connecting them.

Yes, Alaska receives many barrels filled with pig meat. Yes, that kind of investment is the deciding factor in the future sustainability of the state (and all the people in it). Everyone knows the oil and gas won't last forever. By the time that money is gone, Alaska either needs to have a sustainable economy or a population that still knows all the old subsistence ways. Halfway between the two will be a disaster.

Cruise ships make or break communities. If the ships come, you win. If the ships don't come, you lose. The cruise companies wield that power in ways that would make you cringe even if your business didn't rely on them. In this and other ways, Alaska *isn't* a reasonable place - it's a strange sort of modern frontier. That's not just marketing jargon. Go visit the Bush.

I went to a tiny bush village in Alaska with a big chip on my shoulder against Ted Stevens. I lived there for three years. I saw why people keep voting for him. It's not usually greed. Sometimes it's self-preservation.

Re:The same man...

[Hijacked Public]

The obvious answer here is: Because they have a corrupt senator working for them.

Nice to know it is cheaper to buy a corrupt senator than a bridge. Supply and demand comes to our rescue again.

Re:The same man...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm sure that Hawaii has benefited from federal money at some point. If you tried to make the case that no money should be spend unless every single citizen can be shown to have a tangible benefit, you'd never get anything done. That's an extreme position. There are certainly some types of local-to-hawaii projects for which the majority of federal taxpayers would benefit. For example, all of the military related spending there.

But a bridge that goes to an as yet undeveloped area really isn't going to benefit anyone in a different state and ought to be the provenance of state and or city tax dollars, not federal.

Re:The same man...

[massysett]

While it may make one feel better to "stick it to the developers" by making them pay for the additional infrastructure, the truth is that they don't pay for it. The people buying the new housing or office space do.

Of course this is what the developer would like to have you believe. The reality is not that simple.

Certainly the cost of infrastructure increases the developer's expenses. But your assertion, which is that the buyer ultimately pays for this, relies on the fallacious assumption that the developer has the unilateral ability to increase prices in order to pay for the expense. This is not true in any marketplace with a modicum of competition. Sellers do not have the ability to set prices however they please.

Therefore, there is another alternative: in order to pay for the increased cost, the developer sees a reduction in profits.

The reality of course is that increased cost to business will result in both a cut to profits and an increase in prices, though it is difficult to say exactly how the increase will be apportioned to the two.

It does get tiresome to see the "increased cost to business just gets passed on to consumers" argument. This bogus argument is seen everywhere, e.g. "all costs of shoplifting get passed on to consumers" or "all taxes to business get passed on to consumers". It's a nice argument to make if you are a business, because it goads people into forgetting that corporate profits even exist.

Re:The same man...

[d3ac0n]

Um... No.

You see, it's not a matter of who was President and who was in Congress, it's a matter of who sponsred and pushed for tax reductions and fiscal restraint.

In the 80's, Ronald Reagan and the GOP Minority pushed for overall tax reductions and reductions in spending. Reagan was able to successfully use the Presidential Bully Pulpit to push through some tax reform and reduction, leading to an economic boom in the mid to late eighties. Unfortunately, the spending reductions he wanted were largely not implemented, as Congress controls the purse strings in the Federal Government. Because spending was still so high in the early nineties when Bush Sr. (a fiscally liberal republican) came to office, the economy took a downturn when we fought the first Iraq war and he broke a campaign promise by raising taxes.

After Bush was voted out in the early nineties and Clinton was voted in during the post Iraq-war years, the economy slowly recovered. However, Clinton and the Democrat controlled congress enacted the single largest tax increase in American history shortly after the beginning of his term, further slowing economic improvement. This (along with Clinton's failed intervention in Somalia) caused a major turnover in the makeup of Congress in the 1994 elections, resulting in a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. The GOP in Congress immediately set about reversing and eliminating all the tax and spending increases set in place by Bush Sr., Clinton and the Dems. Clinton was beginning to be embroiled in scandal already at this point, and so was too politically weak to oppose the GOP. The tax reductions passed, and within 2 years the economy was booming. At about the same time the Dot Com bubble was happening, and this only served to accelerate the economy even more.

Oddly, despite his public opposition to the tax and spending reductions, Clinton still got the credit for a booming economy he had basically nothing to do with. By the time the economy was really rolling along, Clinton was so embroiled in scandal that he had taken to bombing "terrorists" (read, aspirin factories) in Africa to try and take some of the public scrutiny off himself. He was basically signing anything that came across his desk, as he was hardly involved at all in the political process.

The slump at the end of the nineties and into the early 2000's was caused by the Dot-Com bubble bursting, and the recovery since then has been largely the result of GWB's and the GOP's economic policies. However, there are many who think that both GWB and the GOP have largely abandoned their conservative economic roots in favor of liberal style big-government spending. This is what cost the GOP the 2006 elections, and has seriously slowed our economic recovery since then. While overall we are doing well, we could have been much further ahead had GWB and the GOP acted more Reagan-esqe, and less Clinton-esqe in their fiscal policy.

So credit belongs to those who push for economic reform. Reagan rightly deserves the credit for the 80's, Bush Sr., Clinton and the Dems deserve the credit for the slump in the early nineties, and the GOP deserves the credit for the boom in the mid to late nineties.

Re:The same man...

[JackCroww]

FAIL. The land above the Big Dig tunnels not only will not be used for commercial buildings (parks rather), but cannot, as you cannot sink the support pilings into the tunnels underneath.

Re:The same man...

[vertinox]

Infrastructure is generally the responsibility of government, not private enterprise. If a city feels that it is becoming overcrowded and needs to expand into adjacent lands, it will plan and fund infrastructure to support that expansion.

Yes it is a job for government... But not the Federal Government.

Do you not understand between the roles and responsibilities of the State and Federal government? This is clearly something that falls under the jurisdiction of the state of Alaska unless of course this is an interstate project that is needed for interstate commerce.

In my state, we have crappy roads because our state has a crappy budget. Recently we've started a casino initiative that will pay for the roads.

If Alaska needs the same help, they should fund their own initiatives rather than burden the other states who actually could use the money for millions of more people who don't happen to live in Alaska.

Re:The same man...

[skarphace]

The slump at the end of the nineties and into the early 2000's was caused by the Dot-Com bubble bursting, and the recovery since then has been largely the result of GWB's and the GOP's economic policies.

(read: war)

The economic 'recovery' can be attributed to the wars and all the government contracts going out to the various companies that support it. This includes arms makers, construction, fire crews, mercenaries, and all that garbage that comes with it. And to top it off, while the economy is doing great, we've had an increasing distance between the lower and upper classes. So it's all really about perspective. Yes, as a whole, the country is doing 'great'. However, an increasing amount of the population sees nothing from it.

Re:The same man...

[SnapShot]

Here's my source. http://web.whittier.edu/jmiller/United%20States%20 National%20Debt.htm

The second paragraph under the chart:

If you look at the debt starting with Truman's term (and remove Roosevelt's WWII debt) the difference between the two parties contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.1% per year. Over the last 57 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by more than a two to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 57 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.47. The page has references for more information.

We should be fair to the earlier Republican presidents since about 2/3rds (about $6 trillion) of the existing $8.9 trillion debt was incurred under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. It looks like Eisenhower, in particular, was an example of a real fiscally conservative Republican.

Re:The same man...

[Abcd1234]

Yeah, my understanding is that it's fundamentally about reducing traffic congestion, which was absolutely horrible in downtown Boston. Wikipedia seems to have a decent article on the topic.

Re:The same man...

[darth_zeth]

Why shouldn't Alaskan money go to Alaska, and Hawaiian money go to Hawaii? Why send it through more bureaucracy? From what I understand, Alaska doesn't even collect state income taxes. Maybe they don't need to, since the federal government pays for all their stuff?

And I'm from New Jersey. For every $1 we send to the government, we get about $0.63 back. We get the least back from the federal government of all the states. Alaska is on the other end of the scale, getting back about $1.80 for each dollar they send to the federal government (they are #2, right behind New Mexico's $1.91 return on their dollar). So, on the whole money is flowing from my state, to Alaska.

Hawaii isn't quite as bad as NM or Alaska, but they are #7, getting back $1.54 for each dollar they send to the feds.

Here's my source: http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm

You could calculate it in a bunch of different ways, but the numbers are so far apart that I doubt you could massage them into saying that I'm not getting the short end of the stick when it comes to federal funds.

You explain technology to the masses...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and this is the thanks you get.

Re:You explain technology to the masses...

[Vulva R. Thompson, P]

Yeah, a perfectly good career down the tubes.

Burn in hell, Joe Sixpack.

Hey Ted

[Cracked Pottery]

Just think of a men's Federal prison as a bunch of tubes.

Re:Hey Ted

[rob1980]

Born November 18, 1923 (1923-11-18) (age 83)

Somehow, assuming he doesn't simply die of old age before this case were to work its way through the system, appeals, and all that jazz, I think they'll end up playing the health card to keep him out of prison.

Re:Hey Ted

[Yusaku Godai]

He was screwing up more than just the jargon. He was screwing up the entire explanation of how the internet works. At any rate, that little rant of his is just what made him funny. That doesn't change the fact that, in spite of having now idea what he was talking about, he was the one spearheading legislation capitualiting to big telecoms on getting rid of net neutrality. I think that's what has most slashdotters angry at him, and given the audience it's pretty expected and reasonable.

Re:Hey Ted

[insertwackynamehere]

Yeah it isn't as though it mattered whether he understood the issues he was debating. I mean it's not like he has some sort of responsibility for having a basic understanding of the internet when the entire debate revolved around understanding it's principles.

The lingo part was jokable, but the implications that he had no idea what he was talking about and still debating it in a political arena as a politician was the part that was disturbing and not defendable.

Re:Hey Ted

[Quarters]

What's he done for your state other than spend decades loading down bills with pork barrel amendments that do nothing but funnel our tax dollars up to you in the form of subsidies for just living in Alaska? Oh yeah, he built his multi-million dollar bridge to an island with a total population of 40. He got the government to lighten up wildlife protection laws so big oil can drill holes all over your state, and he....well, what else *has* he done?

There is no logical reason he is the head of the telecommunications committee. One would think the head of a technologically based committee would at least understand the technology. Instead we get a corrupt old fool who can't even function as an effective mouthpiece for the various industries who pay to keep their parrot in power. So instead of a technologically advanced telecommunications infrastructure in this country we're stuck with crap like tubes & trucks analogies, Sen. Ted wanting to be able to port his landline # to his cell phone with the flip of a switch so he can answer calls to that number while riding his motorcycle and him calling for full internet filtering to ban child pornography so the kids don't get targeted by pedophiles.

Let's break those three gems from your corrupt hero, shall we?

No, the internet isn't a truck. It isn't a series of tubes, either. It's a distributed packet switched network. That's not too hard to say, now is it?

Who in the hell would ask for a landline switch so he could talk on his cell phone using his home number while riding his motorcycle? Last time I checked it took two hands to control a motorcycle...you know that whole steering, braking, throttle, and clutch system motorcycles have. Who cares if Teddy runs over a bunch of innocent kids as long as he can talk on his phone!

Speaking of those innocent kids, explain to me how blocking pictures of child pornography is going to keep predators from trying to solicit children online? The two items aren't directly related. There's also those sticky issues of a nationwide internet filter being both simultaneously uninforceable and UNCONSTITUIONAL. Of course the legality of the idea and the fact that it's been shot down on numerous other occasions (COPA I and II, anyone?) won't stop pork-barrel Ted from wasting our tax dollars in an ultimately failed attempt to get the thing to a vote.

And now, on top of this it turns out he got the square footage of his house doubled as a bribe from an oil industry insider who was convicted of bribing officials. Who cares about laws and regulations when it means a bigger rumpus room?!

Seriously, how can you respect that man? He's as corrupt as the day is long. Or, do you just respect the money he's been taking away from the national interest and funneling to you all these years?

Re:Hey Ted

[SnapShot]

If you're talking about the dividend, that is NOT your tax dollars. Well, we're NOT talking about the dividend. The Economist magazine refers to Alaska as America's welfare state. Some choice comments from that respected magazine:

• Federal spending supports a third of all Alaskan jobs...
• ...the state is paved with pork--from its half-empty high-speed ferries to the $500,000 that the federally-funded Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board gave to Alaska Airlines to paint a giant king salmon on one of its aeroplanes.
• ...they are wrapped in a thick mink coat of subsidies.

Re:Hey Ted

[Dhalka226]

Why do you think they forbid sexual preitors from having porn in their homes?

Because America has become a very conservative and frankly sexually repressed nation, and pedophiles are the boogeyman that government uses to justify absolutely anything they want. Terrorism is another.

I mean lets call that unconsitutional too and let the pervert down the street have picture of little kids on his computer after he gets early release for violating your neighbors daughter just to see your son about the right age to attract his attention.

Sounds good to me. Sex offenders should be permitted to have porn with no restrictions that any other group of adults (and frankly, probably even groups of children) do. We should not be legislating morality, and we should not be treating different groups of people worse than any others--even if they are the dreaded p-word. If you're complaining about early release, then you have a problem with the parole system and it has nothing at all to do with constitutionality, pedophilia or whether or not pictures of little kids should be illegal. (I presume you mean sexually explicit pictures--though you never say that, which I think just goes to show exactly how effective this particular boogeyman is.)

While we're at it, I think sex offender registries should be unconstitutional. I think the "sex offenders can't live within 100 miles of a school, library or park" laws should be unconstitutional as well. When you get out of jail, your punishment should be OVER. You've served your debt to society. If that's not true, then let's simply never release these people to begin with--though I think you're going to be hard-pressed to explain why they shouldn't be released when sex offenders' rate of recidivism isn't very high.

I don't want to see children abused sexually, so you can put the brakes on that particular ad hominem retort right now. I'm simply not willing to single out groups of people for harsher, increasingly worse and unending punishment because society happens to think their crimes are particularly bad, and I am not willing to trample anybody's rights after their release AT ALL, much less in a vain attempt to prevent recidivism.

More than anything we, as a society, need to figure out what the hell prison is for. Punishment and deterrence are well and good, but since the majority of criminals DO end up getting out eventually there needs to be much more focus on rehabilitation. And politicians need to stop throwing people under the bus to show they're "tough on crime."

Nice Line from Stevens

[TubeSteak]

"As a practical matter, I will tell you. We paid every bill that was given to us," Stevens told reporters. "Every bill that was sent to us has been paid, personally, with our own money, and that's all there is to it. It's our own money." My BS detector just went off the charts.

The obvious question is: What about the bills that weren't sent to you?
To me, that seems to be the heart of the investigation.

Re:Nice Line from Stevens

[vought]

And here is a nice video explaining the whole VECO scandal.

It doesn't look good for Ted.

Taxes

[Saint Stephen]

People in Alaksa don't pay taxes. The government PAYS people that live in Alaksa to live there. I'm moving to Alaksa, along with all the other losers.

I don't think I'll make it as far as Alaksa. Probably stop in British Columbia.

Re:Taxes

[gEvil (beta)]

Alaskans get an annual dividend payout that's usually about a thousand bucks. The state also doesn't collect sales tax or income tax (although some cities do, IIRC).

Re:Taxes

[Myopic]

Incorrect. The people of Alaska pay taxes. We have various kinds of taxes including property taxes and sales taxes (no state sales tax, but some municipalities). We also have taxes on many specific things, such as hotel taxes, gasoline taxes, and cruise ship taxes, among others.

The government doesn't "pay" us to live here (I live in Juneau, Alaska). The people receive a portion of the proceeds from the exploitation of our primary natural resource, oil; which is only fair, considering it's our resource. Frankly, I find it daft and pathetic that everyone else in the world, especially everyone else in America, doesn't demand the same deal from their governments. Look, democracy is of, by, and for the people, which means public resources are the property of the people, which means when the government sells the rights to those resources for harvest, they are literally selling the property of the people. Doesn't it stand to reason that the people should receive the proceeds? Me, I'm a little miffed that the government gets a cut at all, I think all the proceeds should be distributed, and the government should keep its grubby fingers off my loot.

Re:Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

The government doesn't "pay" us to live here (I live in Juneau, Alaska). The people receive a portion of the proceeds from the exploitation of our primary natural resource, oil; which is only fair, considering it's our resource.

But as an Inuit, don't you get upset that the other Americans call it "their" resource?

He's the victim.

[a_nonamiss]

You can't blame Ted Stevens here. If his understanding of federal corruption laws is anything like his understanding of Net Neutrality, he probably thought all those free upgrades to his house were perfectly legal.

/sarcasm

Please don't joke about prison ass-rape.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot of people think it's a funny idea, but prison sodomy is actually not very funny at all. It can lead to the transmission of AIDS, HIV, or other diseases. It can lead to a destroyed psyche. There is, of course, the brutal physical damage it causes. So it's really not humorous at all.

Re:Please don't joke about prison ass-rape.

[arashi no garou]

Prison sex is just like other forms of rape: It's reprehensible, it's disgusting, it's downright wrong...but you can joke about it! Just ask George Carlin. Paraphrased from his "Parental Advisory - Explicit Lyrics" album:

Lots of groups in this country want to tell you how to talk...Tell you what you can't talk about. Well, sometimes they'll say, well you can talk about something but you can't joke about it. Say you can't joke about something because it's not funny. Comedians run into that shit all the time. Like rape. They'll say, "You can't joke about rape. Rape's not funny." I say, "Fuck you, I think it's hilarious. How do you like that?" I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. See! Hey, why do you think they call him "Porky," eh? I know what you're going to say. "Elmer was asking for it. Elmer was coming on to Porky. Porky couldn't help himself, he got a hard-on, he got horny, he lost control, he went out of his mind!"

Re:Please don't joke about prison ass-rape.

[teh_chrizzle]

prison sodomy is actually not very funny at all

of course not, unless it happens to a clown.

It's not a truck! ...

[boster]

... It's a series of frauds!

Seriously!

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The government PAYS people that live in Alaksa to live there.

Seriously ?

Seriously.

The money collected from other sources (notably north slope oil pumping and transport) are far more than the state government needs for its own function.

Rather than finding new ways to waste it, the more-than-slightly libertarian-leaning politicians decided to do away with other taxes - notably income and property tax.

But they still had a big surplus. So they decided to distribute it to the citizens. Even a libertarian can support this as a move in the right direction, since most of the money comes from selling off a resource "owned in common by the citizens of the state". If the government sells it, the citizen-owners should each get their share of the proceeds, right?

Re:That's why its called Prison...

[feed_me_cereal]

...soooo, a guy who steals a tv should be ass-raped for it?

Need to change campaign laws

[schwit1]

The Ted Steven's type politician will not go away until campaign contributions are permitted only from registered voters from a candidate's district. I should be permitted to give money to only those candidates I am allowed to vote for.

Re:Need to change campaign laws

[belg4mit]

>And if you try and limit their rights, then that whole pesky First Amendment thing gets in the way.
Actually no, because you address that by rectifying another egregious aspect of our current political/
legal system: treating corporations as individuals. If Monsanto cannot serve 10 years for manslaughter,
it's not a person.

Re:Need to change campaign laws

[OldManAndTheC]

I should be permitted to give money to only those candidates I am allowed to vote for.

Unfortunately campaign contributions are only part of the problem. Restricting contributions does nothing to reduce expenditures, which can be made by anyone. So instead of contributing directly to Sen. Stevens campaign, EvilCorp can simply spend its own money running advertisements, perhaps as part of a group such as "Concerned Evil Corporations For America".

Moneyed interests will always be able to get around campaign finance laws. The only way to combat the influence of money is to not play into their game -- stop running expensive TV campaigns, and go back to grassroots organizing. Walking precincts, small get-togethers, political rallies -- the foundations of true democracy. Campaigns (and the major political parties) have become professionalized to a ridiculous extent. It's time to make them amateur again, in the best sense of that word.

Re:That's why its called Prison...

[eric76]

I think it depends on what kind of person you want to come back from prison after his term is over. The way we generally do it, it is a wonder that the recividism rate is not much, much higher because the prisoners aren't rehabilitated much at all.

If you want a prisoner to come out who is neither predator nor preyed upon and who is ready to rejoin society in a responsible manner, then their prison sentences need to be spent in a way that furthers that goal. That means that their prison life needs to be as close to normal as possible. That includes education and job training to enable them to live productively on the outside.

I really don't think anyone should be released from jail or prison until they at least have a GED.

Make prison life reasonably normal instead of a concrete jungle with life threatening dangers at every turn and you will save a lot of money as well because of the reduction in the costs of keeping a prisoner there and because of a lower recividsm rate afterwards.

People are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment.

how funny

[WindBourne]

They give the 2 republicans notice that they were under investigation, and then several weeks later do a "surprise" raid. What do you bet that all evidence had LONG disappeared. I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that the senator (and shortly the congressman), got notice of when and where the "surprise" raid would occur. Just imagine if they had done this with the Lousiana congressman jefferson. All that bribe money would have disappeared.

Re:That's why its called Prison...

[CastrTroy]

But jails are a private enterprise, and by lowering the recidivism rate, they are getting rid of their cash flow. The prisons aren't interested in rehabilitating people, and the health insurance companies aren't interested in providing health care. That's what happens when things that should be socially funded get turned into a money making scheme.

Re:mod this shit down

[HomelessInLaJolla]

because without giving specifics we have no way in hell knowing Read a newspaper. Graft and corruption between big business and government comes up in Section A or the Business section at least once/month.

Mod this down. I'm killing this account anyway. I'll just use one of the several dozen others.

Re:Conspiracy nutjob Ron Paul was Re:Power corrupt

[db32]

Yeah...damn the fact that he made his career as a successful doctor before his run in politics. Oh and there is that whole retired veteran thing...then there is that pesky business of being a fiscal conservative. But he says we hold some responsibility for the attacks (go read your history book please, we have been screwing with the governments of the middle east for AGES) and that criminal scum Ghouliani (worth $7k at divorce but $30 million after 9/11) says he hates America and receives rounds of applause from moron kneejerk "towelhead" hating nutjobs.

It is depressing to me that the media spins him as some psycho conspiracy nut and even more that people believe it. In the meantime we readily cheer on our warhawks who dodged the service and then vote for war, and then call those who served a full 20 cowards for voting against it.

Re:That's why its called Prison...

[GodfatherofSoul]

We're in the same country that thinks it's OK to torture someone on the vague suspicion that they have some sort of connection to someone vaguely associated with a terrorist. Why should our prisoners fair any better?

What we really need is to end "Politician"...

[Cyno01]

As a career choice. People who want to be in politics are probably the last people you want in charge. I say we double the pay for every single elected position in the country, halve the term periods, and appoint people (meeting certain criteria, 25 years old, HS diploma, US citizen) to every single position based on a lottery system at whatever level (local, state, federal) the position is for. Power corrupts, absolutely, and those seeking power are probably already corrupt. Things would be a lot more effective if average people whose friends and neighbors have a vested interest in whats going on were in power. And with shorter term limits, even if someone terrible got appointed, they wouldnt be there for long enough to do all the much damage. Not to mention they would probably focus more on the job at hand. How much time do politicos spend on their re-election campaigns vs actual work?

Re:What we really need is to end "Politician"...

[NekSnappa]

I've had that same thought many times myself. Unfortunately the unintended consequence would be that when there is a very high turn over rate in elected officials, the bureaucrats who are not elected, are not beholden to any constituency, and are around for ever wield much too much power.

Re:That's why its called Prison...

[forkazoo]

...soooo, a guy who steals a tv should be ass-raped for it?

As long as anybody who gets raped also gets a free TV, that's logical.

Re:News for Nerds?

[CryBaby]

So you're suggesting that it's illogical to support Al Gore but to condemn Ted Stevens? That's interesting.

On the one hand, you have an old, corrupt fool who doesn't even understand what the word "internet" means and on the other hand you have a guy who may reasonably be called one of the most visionary mainstream politicians of our time, given his proactive, leading-edge involvement in both the internet and environmental issues.

Thanks for getting that infamous Gore quote straight. Here's a little more info from Snopes:

It is true, though, that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).

I think the worst you can say about Gore's involvement with the internet is that he played an instrumental role in transforming it from an academic/military tool into the thing that you and I are arguing on right now. However you want to describe it, it's no small accomplishment.

Now compare that to Ted Stevens' accomplishments. ...chirp... ...chirp... ...chirp...

By the way, since Gore was "involved in plenty of scandals", you should have no problem citing them and recounting whether or not he was vindicated.

Re:That's why its called Prison...

[xENoLocO]

Good to see a fellow time warner subscriber online...

Re:Power corrupts

[Billly Gates]

Its already turning into this as the federal government is slashing funds for state programs that provide transportation, education, and medicaid.

My wifes college loan is now 7%! Fasfa paid for her college totally before I married her when her exhusband made more money. Now I am finishing school with less money and fasfa can't afford to pay for all of it. I need 2k every semester and work fulltime while I go to school.

Now the government under Bush is in record debt and the biggest it ever has. Hmmm

The states are doing things now that the federal government used to provide and property taxes have went up 3% in my state alone! Why? Because the government is wasting money on wars and paying interest on our debt.

I support Ron Paul and I am very close to becoming a republican. The federal government is way too big and I have been studying Ronald Reagan's policies and they make sense. Take college economics 101?

We need less federal government and more state level government programs. States pay for most of the things you describe and thanks to high federal spending you are suffering for it .... but with high taxes.

Re:Power corrupts

[AuMatar]

I have taken econ 101. I've also taken history 101. And more advanced econ classes. Ronald Regan's tickle down theory is absolute garbage. Money just doesn't trickle down- it accumulates. Trickle down has been tried twice in the history of the US. The first time was in the 20s, under Coolidge and Hoover. The result- the Great Depression. The second was under Regan. The result- a massive stock crash, followed by the 2nd biggest depression of the 20th century. Trickle down has 1 and only 1 purpose- to amass more wealth and power for the already wealthy.

Re:Conspiracy nutjob Ron Paul was Re:Power corrupt

[db32]

I'm glad you are so well informed to have researched his past, his record, his writings, his speeches...oh wait...you just made a decision based on a media appearance... He is also one of the few politicians that has a solid record of voting based on the constitution rather than all the other nonsense. This is EXACTLY the mindset that got us stuck in this situation...stupid kneejerk reactions to media appearances. Certainly by your logic everything the current administration has done is the best possible path because the offending members of the administration make regular appearances on 'legitimate' media outlets... We are under attack by Islamofascists who hate our freedoms because President "you gotta catapult the propoganda" Bush said so on all the major outlets right?

Are you honestly going to try to tell me that The Alex Jones show is any worse than Fox News about going overboard and making sensationalist shit up? Incidentally, not that I agree with much of Jones' ideas...look up The Big Lie. Telling a lie so implausibly huge that it could not be anything but the truth... Welcome to modern American government. Go research the people in office, where they have been, the positions they held. Robert Gates our current SecDef was also head of the CIA during the Iran Contra business, Donald Rumsfeld swore to have the ban on aspertame lifted while he was Chairman of G.D Searle (the makers of) sure enough reapplied the day after Reagan entered office, and eventually was approved by a Reagan appointee who then quit under allegations of impropriety. Dick Cheney SecDef during Gulf War I, Bush Sr CIA Director, the list goes on and on and on and these are only the well known household names. If you actually bothered to read the history of these things it has been a select cast of a few in key positions of power in our government for the past 20+ years. We elect new figureheads yet all of these people just shift around appointed to new positions and park in some of the most criminal corporations in between. Monsanto, G.D. Searle, Halliburton, again the list goes on. None of this is conspiracy theory...it is clearly written and documented history that people are too god damned lazy to bother looking up. So grab your flag, sing your song, and bomb the infade...err...bomb the terrorist...sorry the justifications are so similar I get them confused sometimes.

Re:That's why its called Prison...

[Nazlfrag]

Or, perhaps they could stop wasting your money on bridges to nowhere and provide prisons, schools and hospitals with those funds. No 'fuzzy socialistic blanket' required.

Re:That's why its called Prison...

[Kadin2048]

I'm not arguing about the sodomy, but I know a guy who's a cook at a maximum-security (state, not Federal) prison, and the food they serve isn't half bad. It's definitely better than what gets served in many schools.

Unless you're talking about situations where someone's food is repeatedly being stolen by other prisoners or something, nobody's starving.

But yeah, they're probably being ass-raped and beaten, so being well-fed is probably small comfort.

Re:Power corrupts

[Billly Gates]

The stock market exploded with reagonomics and interest rates plummeted and inflation was finally under control.

More money for the wealthy means lower interest rates so businesses can hire more and expand as loans become cheap. It also helps joe sixpack refinance his home which goes up in value as more can afford. Infact the housing hike that hit so much of the nation was because of Clinton's low interest rate policy borrowed from republicans.

What happened in the 1920's was the result of unregulated loans for stocks where you could buy a stock with only a a fraction of the up front cost. Great way to gain alot of wealth fast but once they go down then your pretty much screwed. That is illegal today.

What happened in the late 1980's was related to computer problems and the banks not having enough money for some bad savings and loan scams. Again more reagonomics can fix this as more banks have money but competing agaisnt hte government for money is bad as the banks favor the government. Right now they have alot more in capital so a repeat is not close to what happened in the late 80's. IT had nothing to do with reagonmics.

The more money people have the more jobs are created and the fact that after 9-11 we had not had a serious recession confirms that giving businesses low interest rate loans and wealth insurances more jobs.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:That's why its called Prison...

[geobeck]

Now instead of a greedy system bent on destroying the world via evil 'profits', we have a greedy system that costs just as much...

Let's see some figures to back that up, please. Every article I've read on the subject seem to think that the US federal government spends more per capita on health care than any other. That's the government, not the poor saps who can find themselves bankrupt from hospital bills because they were unlucky enough to get sick.

Too Bad...

[Enderandrew]

It is too bad he doesn't understand the internet, because the writing has been on the wall, or on the web rather. It has been speculated for a while they were coming after him. If he read /. he would have known to shred the evidence long before they raided his home.

The difference is...

[Moraelin]

The difference is that:

A) Early railroad made its big bucks less from transporting people, and more by transporting goods and raw materials for the industry. In fact passengers were often the necessary evil: you wouldn't get a permit to build a railroad if you didn't haul the people too.

Hence just counting how many people were there, is highly misleading. The west was by and large the captive market and source of cheap raw materials for the east coast, in much the same way as India was to England. Building a railroad there made sense.

B) Railroads were a _major_ strategic asset for the army. I don't think these bridges to nowhere count as that.

B) More importantly, railroads were built by private capital, because they were profitable. That's a freakin' huge difference between that and pork barrel contracts to at most please a village on an island.

The laissez faire capitalism of the 19'th century was pretty vehemently against using government money on something that competed with private initiative. Plus, the government didn't even have that kind of money anyway.

I must admit, though: That doctrine was often taken to absurd extremes, such as in England where, when they _had_ to support their own population in a crisis or famine... because they couldn't just give money to people (they thought it would compete with the employment market) or build something useful (it would have competed with private industry), they paid the people to build some useless stuff like roads from nowhere to nowhere (literally, unconnected, in the middle of a field) or useless towers or such. But even then, it must be said that it was only in times of extreme necessity, instead of social security. And it was openly useless stuff. Even in its stupidity, it just wasn't the same thing.

term limits = worst idea EVER

[Scudsucker]

You term limit politicians, they'll spend their years in office thinking about their next job. And what's going to get them a better job: serving their constituents, or selling them out to powerful special interests?

No, the solution to corruption are hard ethics rules, sunshine laws and aggressive oversight. Term limits just make the problem worse, not better.

Re:Power corrupts

[Epi-man]

The second was under Regan. The result- a massive stock crash, followed by the 2nd biggest depression of the 20th century.

Umm, what? I assume you are talking about the crash of '87 (I am amazed how many people have forgotten about it). So let me see, Jan 2nd, 1986 the DJIA closes at $1549.20, we have Black Monday and close at 1,738.74 on October 19th, 1987 (still over 12% above the Jan '86 close!!!). On October 30th, 1987, the DJIA closed at 1,993.53, where is your depression?! What kind of crack are you smoking? Can I please, please, please invest in this depression of yours, I would love to have a return of 29% is under 2 years! Please get your head out of the clouds and realize that you speak utter non-sense. There was a singular depression in the 20th century, there was a mild recession in the early 90s that by all economic standards barely qualifies as a recession.

Re:News for Nerds?

[Crad]

If you think these are scandals, then WOW, wait until you see what has been happening in the White House in the past 6-7 years

Re:When will /. turn on Dianne Feinstein?

[beckerist]

Considering we're still all funked up from the economics of every single example you gave I think it's VERY relevant.

If you REALLY don't think that the decisions made more than 10 years ago don't affect us today, please read this. (PDF)

Re:Power corrupts

[AuMatar]

The stock market exploded with reagonomics and interest rates plummeted and inflation was finally under control.

The stock market exploding is not the sign of a healthy economy. Its more the sign of a bubble than anything else. Note it also exploded in the 1920s. The anti-inflation was a result of the work of Paul Vocker and the FED, not Reganomics. Regan also caused the 2nd largest defecit spending in US history (second only to Bush II), which we're still paying interest on today. Pretty short sighted policies to spend trillions more than we had.

More money for the wealthy means lower interest rates so businesses can hire more and expand as loans become cheap.

In an ideal world, things work like that. In the real world, what happens is spending on luxury items, higher housing costs, and general inflation. The greatest increases in world GDP have always happened when the middle class expands- when money is spread out amongst many, increasing the buying power of the general populace not the rich.

The more money people have the more jobs are created and the fact that after 9-11 we had not had a serious recession confirms that giving businesses low interest rate loans and wealth insurances more jobs.

Wow you have a short memory. We had a recession after 9/11. Followed by a jobless recovery- stock prices went back up but unemployment stayed high. Then they putzed with the numbers (turning McDonalds jobs into "Manufacturing") to get rid of the evidence.

Re:When will /. turn on Dianne Feinstein?

[devilspgd]

It matters because Ted Stevens wasn't just another politician talking about things he didn't understand, rather, he was in a position to be proposing and backing legislation to change things he didn't (and doesn't) understand.

He actually believes that his email is stuck somewhere waiting for days because of people downloading movies, and is basing legislation on that belief.

I don't have the mechanical skills to rebuild my car, but neither do I propose a laws to dictate how the experts do it.

Low dollar not necessarily bad

[Jimithing DMB]

The low value of the dollar against other currencies is not necessarily a bad thing. We've had a huge trade deficit for years now importing all sorts of luxury items from overseas. Note that we don't import a lot of food though. So the benefit of a weak dollar against other currencies is that while we may have to cut back on some inessential purchases, we won't be starving to death since within the country the dollar is relative to itself. We also might start exporting more goods and services than we have been.

For instance, I'm currently working for a company overseas so the weak dollar tends to benefit both myself and my employer. The company I'm contracting for is getting me for relatively cheap, and I'm making plenty of money to buy the things I need. For a "knowledge worker" like myself (a programmer) the Internet is a wonderful boon as it makes the market for my services so much bigger.

The downside of the weak dollar is that one big import this country has is oil. That of course makes transportation more costly which does have an effect on the price of goods. What this is probably going to mean is that we'll start to see more local foods again. For instance, apples are easy to come by in Virginia. Corn, soy, wheat, cotton can all be grown easily around here. But orange juice is going to go up because orange trees need warmer climates and thus orange-based products need to be transported.

Of course, you actually have to pick those things too so we're probably going to see within our lifetimes farms moving to electrical power to run the equipment. It is absolutely within the realm of possibility that we will see fields with power lines stretched across them or even see a return to (gasp) manual labor.

This is the nature of economics and the nature of life. We've all grown rather lazy and accustomed to being able to get whatever we want whenever we want for not much money. That kind of opulence cannot last forever and was mainly brought about in the first place by the discovery of an incredibly cheap source of energy. As we've seen over the past few years, as that source of energy becomes more expensive it ripples through the economy. Eventually, we will find another source of energy and we can return to our previously scheduled overindulgence. That will probably be my children or even my grand children. Tough shit, that's how it goes. You and I will just have to tough it out.

If you really do want to continue the lifestyle you've been leading with a high dollar and an apparently limitless American economic machine then you ought to be in favor of taking over the middle east. I'm not talking about what Bush is doing now, supposedly trying to build a democracy. I mean, we'd outright have to invade and plunder every bit of oil they have. That is, obviously, not an option and it would in effect only delay the inevitable. Those who say war in the middle-east is mostly about oil are dead on. But it's not necessarily about stealing it, just about making sure we don't have to bend over to every demand the oil-rich nations make. It's a check on the power those states can wield.

The only good thing about high oil prices is that it is and will continue to cause quite a bit more R&D in alternative energy sources. If we're really lucky, we'll be able to bring at least one of our current blue-sky ideas to market within the next 20 years and keep the oil-rich nations in check until we no longer require them. That is a quite plausible reason for keeping the war in Iraq going for another couple of decades. Shitty, isn't it?

Of course, I am sure this will fall on deaf ears because it's actually a reasoned argument about the pros and cons of various government policies, not a tirade about how bad Bush is. Anyone feeling that way should just go back to Kos so he can boo the GOP "team" as if this was some game of high-school football.