Slashdot Mirror


Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens Is Indicted

Many readers are letting us know about the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens on seven counts of making false statements on his financial disclosure forms. We discussed the raid on the senator's house a while back. Everyone's favorite technologically challenged senator is the longest-serving Republican in the history of the upper house. An Alaskan paper gives deep background on the probe that has ensnared Stevens and a number of other Alaska political figures.

553 comments

  1. tee-hee by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's a joke here about federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison and clogged tubes but I'm just going to savor the indictment instead.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People like Ted Stevens don't go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

      Some pigs are more equal than others.

    2. Re:tee-hee by mattpm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unsolicited male in his tubes?

    3. Re:tee-hee by philspear · · Score: 1

      Well considering he's a republican congressman, like Larry Craig, it might soon become a "pound me in the hand in the bathroom" prison.

    4. Re:tee-hee by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      At the moment it's only his finances that are being probed.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:tee-hee by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A rich powerful man only goes to prison if a richer, more powerful man wants him there. I wonder who he pissed off? Gates? Branson?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:tee-hee by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

      He loves the Incredible Hulk. Now he's going to find out what makes hulks so incredible. Hopefully Larry Craig can give him some pointers.

    7. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      you might say it's... ASS-backwards!!1 hur hur :-/

    8. Re:tee-hee by db32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Leavenworth is a federal prison. If you have bothered to watch the news there have been more than a few murder/rapist types that have been going there. I don't know where you get the idea that Federal prison is soft or how you managed to get modded informative for that patently false nonsense.

      I can only assume that you are confused by Alcatraz being a recreational area now. Alcatraz was not a pleasant place when it was a federal prison. Back then the tour of the place lasted a bit longer than an afternoon.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    9. Re:tee-hee by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Federal prison is mainly big-time drug users and drug dealers.

      State prison is mainly small-time drug users and drug dealers.

      A friend's brother down in the St Louis area went to federal prison for loaning a cocaine dealer a thousand dollars; the charge was conspiracy to deliver cocaine (the dealer had been busted and was setting up innocent guys to lessen his own sentence; most of his high school graduating class went to Maximum Security Club Fed for twice as long as he did).

      Violent criminals usually don't get caught. When they do, it depends on who they attacked.

      A woman I know went to Dwight Correctional (Illinois hardcore women'sprison) for 4 months for nonviolent drug posession, while a guy I know and intensly dislike broke into a man's home and tried to kill him with a butcher knife. He spent two weeks in the county jail - but the man he attacked was a poor black man.

      That is American justice.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    10. Re:tee-hee by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People like Ted Stevens don't go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

      Eh, regardless of his position or wealth do 84 year olds really go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison for white collar crimes?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:tee-hee by infonography · · Score: 5, Funny

      the senator will be learning a new line;

      You've got Male!

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    12. Re:tee-hee by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Federal prison is mainly big-time drug users and drug dealers.

      State prison is mainly small-time drug users and drug dealers.

      What makes one a "big-time drug user" as opposed to a small-time one?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:tee-hee by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Hopefully Larry Craig can give him some pointers.

      1) Tap the foot of the guy in the stall next to you.
      2) ???
      3) Profit!

      Don't see why ya needed Larry Craig to tell ya that ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    14. Re:tee-hee by evilviper · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you have bothered to watch the news there have been more than a few murder/rapist types that have been going there.

      "a few" is right. The vast majority of criminals in federal prison are still non-violent offenders, while state prisons have a much higher percentage of violent criminals.

      I don't know where you get the idea that Federal prison is soft or how you managed to get modded informative for that patently false nonsense.

      Maybe the fact that it's true? The fact that federal prison is filled with people who can't be charged under state laws, which includes lots of tax-related crimes, and the like. That's not to say there aren't major criminals, but they are in small enough numbers that federal prisons don't become one big balkanized gang-war zone, like state prisons.

      And for the record, I work down the street from (what used to be until recently) the highest-security federal prison anywhere.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:tee-hee by WebmasterNeal · · Score: 0

      Uh hello Office Space? You don't belong on slashdot if you don't get a reference to that movie.

      --
      "During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
    16. Re:tee-hee by pthisis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Federal prison is mainly big-time drug users and drug dealers.

      Correct. Well, I dunno that it's all big-time, but it mainly drug users/dealers.

      State prison is mainly small-time drug users and drug dealers

      Incorrect. There are far more violent criminals than drug users/dealers in state prisons.

      I can't find a link in 2 minutes of googling, but the proportions haven't changed much since 2000:

      In 2000, an estimated 57% of Federal inmates and 21% of State inmates were serving a sentence for a drug offense; about 10% of Federal inmates and 49% of State inmates were in prison for a violent offense.

      -- http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    17. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You forgot to mention that you have a client there and that he said the trick is to either kick someone's ass the first day or become someone's bitch.

    18. Re:tee-hee by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I once had a ex-con tell me a really interesting piece of prison wisdom. Something you find out about if you ever do go to prison. *ANY PRISON*

      "See son, prison is like playing baseball. It don't matter if you are the pitcher or the catcher, you are still going to have to play with some balls."

    19. Re:tee-hee by AmaDaden · · Score: 5, Funny

      His first name is "The" and his last name is "People".

    20. Re:tee-hee by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      ...his plumber?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:tee-hee by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      What makes one a "big-time drug user" as opposed to a small-time one?

      The length of the prison sentence! Some users use so much that the quantities they possess for personal use automatically get them tried and convicted for dealing, even though they're not dealers.

      Jimbo wasn't a user OR a dealer; a guy he went to high school with who had been dealing dope (everything from reefer to heroin to steroids) for twenty years got busted, so he let the feds tap his phone and he called up everybody he knew and tried to borrow money. Everyone who loaned him money went to prison.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    22. Re:tee-hee by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Gates? Branson?

      Politicians are powerful, but nowhere near that wealthy. The CEO of even a modestly sized company earns more than a US Senator.

      The likelihood is that Tubes was simply far too blatant with his shady deals. So blatant that even the masses began to notice. Once that happened, he became a liability to the people that were once willing to use him and he had to be gotten rid of.

      The smart politician is corrupt, but always discrete about it.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    23. Re:tee-hee by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      Or if he pisses off the DA.

    24. Re:tee-hee by wumpus188 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be pretty socialized. We need more Slashdot users like that.

    25. Re:tee-hee by Wiseblood1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, it was the Spanish Inquisition. Poor Ted never even saw it coming.

      --
      A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking
    26. Re:tee-hee by j79zlr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Usually congressmen first become wealthy, then become politicians for the power. I don't think any elected official has aspirations for office for the over the table pay.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    27. Re:tee-hee by blantonl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to be kidding me. US Senators might only be paid a base salary of 165K or so, but their ability to generate wealth far exceeds the ability of many corporate CEOs.

      Quote from Forbes:

      The wealth of the incoming class will hardly raise eyebrows in the Senate, where about half of the current 100 members are also millionaires and the average net worth is $8.9 million, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. By contrast, less than 1% of the U.S. population has a net worth of $1 million or more.

      --
      Lindsay Blanton
      RadioReference.com
    28. Re:tee-hee by Acapulco · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This reminds me of a racist joke (please to understand that, I didn't created the joke nor I endorse it, but I think it draws a pretty clear picture on "equality" nowadays) that goes like this:

      Country X's government realizes the fact that speaking of "black and white people" doesn't cut it anymore, so they pass a law that states that now everyone is "Green".

      ...only to quickly add that "Light green" people should stand on this side and "Dark green" people should stand on the other side...

      So, I'm pretty sure that if he ever gets to set foot in jail, it will be on "light green's people jail" for sure.

      --
      Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
    29. Re:tee-hee by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I need some low friends in high places, but all I have is high friends in low places!

      I imagine I know more people who have been in prison than the average slashdotter. I journal about some of them (but be forewarned that most of my journals are NSFW)

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    30. Re:tee-hee by jschmitz · · Score: 0

      Actually the Federal Prisons are broken up into lower and higher security levels - Leavenworth is a maxmimum security lockup - where on the other hand lower security camps like Eglin house mostly white collar criminals and non-violent offenders - I think some people always tend to think of the camps when in fact yes there are very tough federal lockups too IE Atlanta Penitentiary

    31. Re:tee-hee by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uncle Ted may be going to Leavenworth, or some other Federal joint, but he's going to be held in the minimalist minimal security section, and will have unlimited visits and weekend trips home. No US senator (or Bush Administration member) will ever see the inside of a real jail cell. No matter what they've done.

      Hell, the Vice President shot a guy in the face and told the sheriff who came to the door to come back tomorrow, and then had the luxury of almost a full day to clean up any potential evidence (or potential witness). Next time you get stopped for speeding, try giving the trooper your cell number and asking him to give you a call tomorrow, when you promise to take care of the matter. See where that gets you.

      Ted Stevens' attorneys will say that their client is too old and feeble to do any time at all, even if Ted goes hunting every other weekend and bangs hookers and snorts meth daily. And the federal judge will talk about how losing his reelection bid will be "sufficient punishment" for this great man who has served his country for so long, blah blah blah.

      Bottom line is that Senator Stevens will, like his brethren, jack off in the face of the Rule of Law.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:tee-hee by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Funny

      His first name is "The" and his last name is "People".

      Aww, aren't you cute. You actually believe that, don't you. That's just precious.

    33. Re:tee-hee by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Informative

      My respect for Dick Durbin just went WAY up (he already had my respect, and my vote). I just found out a couple of weeks ago that he lives about ten blocks west of me. Five blocks east of my house is where the ghetto begins! The neighborhood he lives in is normal houses; the million dollar homes are on the far west side.

      Is it possible that not only do we have an honest politician, but an honest politician in the state where we're so patriotic that even being dead doesn't keep us from voting?

      Wow.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    34. Re:tee-hee by Luke_22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Some pigs are more equal than others.

      Sad memo...
      In Italy our Prime Minister actually said that, speaking of himself, in court.
      well, he didn't say pigs actually... nor he put that in plural...
      He just said (speaking of himself):"this citizen is more equal than the others, since he's been elected"...
      *sigh*

      --
      "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
    35. Re:tee-hee by notamisfit · · Score: 1

      Not to mention ADX Florence. Then again, I really don't see a US Senator going there.

      --
      Jesus is coming -- look busy!
    36. Re:tee-hee by megaditto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nixon was piss-poor until well after his becoming vice-president, as his voluntarily disclosed tax returns show.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    37. Re:tee-hee by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      There are far more violent criminals than drug users/dealers in state prisons.

      Your claim and the statistics you point to indicate that you think that "drug users/dealers" and "violent criminals" are exclusive sets, and that conviction of a non-drug offense means that one is not a "drug user/dealer".

      These beliefs are not accurate.

    38. Re:tee-hee by Forbman · · Score: 1

      ...except for Ft. Leavenworth, the MAX prisons, and a few others...

    39. Re:tee-hee by afabbro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to be kidding me. US Senators might only be paid a base salary of 165K or so, but their ability to generate wealth far exceeds the ability of many corporate CEOs.

      Quote from Forbes:

      The wealth of the incoming class will hardly raise eyebrows in the Senate, where about half of the current 100 members are also millionaires and the average net worth is $8.9 million, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. By contrast, less than 1% of the U.S. population has a net worth of $1 million or more.

      The point you missed is that their net worth was that high before they became Senators.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    40. Re:tee-hee by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Leavenworth is a federal prison. If you have bothered to watch the news there have been more than a few murder/rapist types that have been going there.

      Then they must be going there for other crimes, since neither murder nor rape is prosecuted at the Federal level, nor are murderers or rapists sent to Federal prison.

      The only exceptions I can think of are RICO Mafiosi and terrorists, which is a pretty small percentage of the prison population.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    41. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because everyone knows all rich people and politicians are corrupt monsters who only live for sticking it to the "po whittle guy." It must be frustrating to live in such a warped, conspiracy-based fantasy world all of the time. LOL!

    42. Re:tee-hee by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Or he is just the absolute best at hiding all his shady assets. Either way it IS admirable.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    43. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely these Senators had plenty of cash going into the office.

      I mean really, who want poor people running things? Poor people are poor because of the decisions they make, same goes for the wealthy.

    44. Re:tee-hee by obyom · · Score: 1

      Representative Randy Cunningham was convicted of taking bribes in 2006.
      He's incarcerated in a minimum security camp at the United States Penitentiary in Tucson, AZ. His projected release date is June 4, 2013.

    45. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because you've bought into the whole "cheap cynicism is cool" BS, doesn't mean you have to be so condescending to those of us who still recognize that sometimes the right people do the right things for the right reasons.

      Maybe not often, but it happens.

    46. Re:tee-hee by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah because everyone know the US legal system HATES to lock up black men. Or is that just the "liberal media" spin on it? Or maybe it is because he hasn't yet been convicted of anything, and the investigation is still ongoing. Or do you think that as soon as someone is charged, they should go straight to jail without a trial? I mean, why would anyone ever be wrongly convicted of anything? If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear!

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    47. Re:tee-hee by jonpublic · · Score: 1

      He is accused of lying on his annual Senate financial disclosure reports between 1999 and 2006 â" an indictment that caps a lengthy FBI investigation that has upended Alaska politics and brought unfavorable attention to both Stevens and his congressional colleague, GOP Rep. Don Young. Both are running for re-election this year.

      Young, who is under scrutiny for his fundraising practices involving VECO, called Stevens "one of the most effective and honest legislators I have ever worked with."

      "He has worked diligently to serve Alaska and has fought to make life better for people in every region of our state," Young said in a statement. "I hope people will not rush to judgment and will let the judicial process work. The process is based on being innocent until proven guilty."

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_go_co/stevens_indictment

      This Young guy is pretty hilarious.

    48. Re:tee-hee by x2A · · Score: 1

      "federal prison is filled with people who can't be charged under state laws"

      Or (correct me if wrong - am non-american, never been there, etc etc) people who have committed crimes over state borders, eg, serial killer who's killed in one state will go to state prison, but one who's killed in multiple states will go federal. Again, tax evasion, computer hacking, within single state = state prison, across state borders will get you to federal. Of course, there will be exceptions, but I think that's the general rule.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    49. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he got tired of cleaning out his old, dirty tubes.

      Mmm, fecal matter.

    50. Re:tee-hee by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      That's what you get with the stunts that Berlusconi pulls on your country.

      He proves that organized crime has moved to the corporation.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    51. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Unsolicited male in his tubes?

      So that's why he was so adamant about closing the anal log hole.

    52. Re:tee-hee by db32 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Something like that. If you are convicted of violating a federal law then you will go to a federal prison, if you are convicted of violating a state law then you will go to a state prison. Typically it does deal with whether or not state borders were crossed, but it isn't necessarily a strict rule.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    53. Re:tee-hee by omnipresentbob · · Score: 1

      And you think it's decreased since then?

      The article the man was referencing is here: http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/17/senate-politics-washington-biz-wash_cx_jh_1120senate.html

      Furthermore, your quote of the quote:

      The wealth of the incoming class will hardly raise eyebrows in the Senate, where about half of the current 100 members are also millionaires and the average net worth is $8.9 million...

      Emphasis added so that the grammar is a little more obvious.

    54. Re:tee-hee by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Your claim and the statistics you point to indicate that you think that "drug users/dealers" and "violent criminals" are exclusive sets, and that conviction of a non-drug offense means that one is not a "drug user/dealer".

      If you're getting at the fact that people can be imprisoned for multiple offenses, that still doesn't change the fact that the majority of state prisoners are _not_ in for drug-related crimes. And even if _all_ of the drug-related prisoners were also in for some violent crime, there are still more violent-crime-only prisoners in state prisons.

      If what you're getting at is that these people may be drug users/dealers independent of the crimes that they were convicted for, that's certainly true. If you read the thread, it's also clearly not what was being discussed. The post I responded to said in part:

      Federal prison is mainly big-time drug users and drug dealers.

      State prison is mainly small-time drug users and drug dealers.

      A friend's brother down in the St Louis area went to federal prison for loaning a cocaine dealer a thousand dollars; the charge was conspiracy to deliver cocaine (the dealer had been busted and was setting up innocent guys to lessen his own sentence; most of his high school graduating class went to Maximum Security Club Fed for twice as long as he did).

      Violent criminals usually don't get caught. When they do, it depends on who they attacked.

      A woman I know went to Dwight Correctional (Illinois hardcore women'sprison) for 4 months for nonviolent drug posession, while a guy I know and intensly dislike broke into a man's home and tried to kill him with a butcher knife. He spent two weeks in the county jail - but the man he attacked was a poor black man.

      Clearly the discussion was about drug users/dealers in the context of those who are actually prosecuted for (and convicted of) such crimes.

      The proportion of people serving time for drug-related crimes is quite high, and does in fact form a majority of federal prisoners. On the other hand, the intimation that the majority of state prisoners are in for drug-related crimes is simply incorrect.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    55. Re:tee-hee by megaditto · · Score: 1

      It's not about being black, it's about being poor. There are more minorities in prison because there are more poor people among minorities. And poor people cannot afford a PI, a good attorney, publicity, etc.

      Just remember OJ, MJ, or Rodney King to see what good lawyers and free media coverage can get you (despite you being guilty as sin).

      So yeah, adjusted for income, our justice system is colorblind.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    56. Re:tee-hee by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      If you're getting at the fact that people can be imprisoned for multiple offenses, that still doesn't change the fact that the majority of state prisoners are _not_ in for drug-related crimes.

      No, I'm getting at the fact that people that are drug users or drug dealers may be imprisoned solely for other crimes because that's what they are convicted of, and that the prohibition of drugs (whether that policy is on balance justified or not) makes it more likely that any drug user or seller will be involved in violence, so that the proportion of people imprisoned for drug crimes (ignoring any possibility of erroneous conviction) merely sets a floor on the proportion that are "drug users or dealers" (or even that are in prison as a consequence of being drug users or dealers), rather than representing that proportion or setting a ceiling on it.

    57. Re:tee-hee by rpillala · · Score: 1

      I think the real trick perpetrated by members of congress is getting their daily expenses taken care of by someone else. I can't imagine they have to spend very much (if any) of their own money for things while in Washington. If taxpayers don't foot the bill, some lobbyist will be happy to take the Senator out to expensive restaurants for all meals.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    58. Re:tee-hee by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      Heh. Parent to your post (emphasis mine):

      Usually congressmen first become wealthy, then become politicians

      Your response: [single datum contradicting general statement]

      Also, I'd like to add that the wealth distribution has changed a lot since Nixon was elected, though the wealthy far outweighed the !wealthy in national office even when he was elected. Now, it is impossible to be elected to national office without the connections to the powerful elite that typically come only with being one of the wealthy.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    59. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Jimbo wasn't a user OR a dealer; a guy he went to high school with who had been dealing dope (everything from reefer to heroin to steroids) for twenty years got busted, so he let the feds tap his phone and he called up everybody he knew and tried to borrow money. Everyone who loaned him money went to prison.

      That sounds unlikely. Are you relying on your friend's version of these events? I bet reality is nothing like what your friend is telling you.

    60. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Might well be because the cynicism is deserved rather than because it's "cool".

      Just because some people are still naive enough to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Honest Politicians doesn't mean all of us should disable our critical thinking skills.

    61. Re:tee-hee by pthisis · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, I'm getting at the fact that people that are drug users or drug dealers may be imprisoned solely for other crimes because that's what they are convicted of

      That would fall under my second option ("If what you're getting at is that these people may be drug users/dealers independent of the crimes that they were convicted for").

      the prohibition of drugs (whether that policy is on balance justified or not) makes it more likely that any drug user or seller will be involved in violence

      Absolutely true. Still, we don't say that people are in jail for poverty when they get busted stealing stuff, or for alcohol use when they commit violent crimes after having several drinks.

      My main interest in correcting the GGP is that I'm in favor of re-examining drug prohibition, and I think the numbers are stark enough when presented without an obvious bias.

      Trying to claim that state prisons are mostly in for drug use/dealing makes opponents of reform likely to turn a deaf ear when they look at the numbers and see that that is certainly not obviously true, and requires drawing a lot of tenuous implications to defend.

      It undermines the argument to present contorted conclusions as fact, and if you want to make the more complex case you should take the time to do so fully; if you just want a quick stat, saying that more than half of our federal prisoners are in for drug crimes and another quarter-million prisoners in state prisons are there for drug crimes (1 in 5 state prisoners).

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    62. Re:tee-hee by SMS_Design · · Score: 1

      You expected comprehension from someone who chose their /. username as a tribute to Limbaugh?

    63. Re:tee-hee by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      about 10% of Federal inmates and 49% of State inmates were in prison for a violent offense.

      So, 90% of the federal prisons are filled with non-violent criminals. More than half of all state prisons are filled with non-violent criminals. And yet we hear all the time about the criminals that committed violent crimes being let out early, and lack of prison space being a factor. That just doesn't make sense to me.

    64. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On July 19, 2008, the New York Times reported that Cunningham was seeking a presidential pardon from outgoing president George W. Bush.

      I bet he gets it too.

    65. Re:tee-hee by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    66. Re:tee-hee by billcopc · · Score: 1

      The right people do the right things, and then the wrong people quickly undo it all while nobody's looking.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    67. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm. that is bullshit.

      take for instance a crime commited on federal property. Even a crime commited by soldiers in the armed forces. there are quite a few in there for murder. Murder can be processed at the Federal level dumb ass.

    68. Re:tee-hee by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      The smart politician is corrupt, but always discrete about it.

      What, you mean he only ever dabbles in one form of corruption at a time?

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    69. Re:tee-hee by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      You have to be kidding me. US Senators might only be paid a base salary of 165K or so, but their ability to generate wealth far exceeds the ability of many corporate CEOs.

      especially if they're taking money on the side from oil companies like Stevens apparently was doing

    70. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or (correct me if wrong - am non-american, never been there, etc etc) people who have committed crimes over state borders, eg, serial killer who's killed in one state will go to state prison, but one who's killed in multiple states will go federal.

      I'm pretty sure that's usually not the way it's done in those sorts of crimes. Usually it seems that one state will go first and push for the maximum sentence (death or life without the possibility of parole). The other state will wait until the first state has finished and either try to tack on additional sentences or, if there's no need, just drop it.

      If it was always a Federal case, there would be a lot more criminals that got off since Federal prosecutors try to only prosecute cases they're almost certain they'll win (the tout a 95% conviction rate). And doing it twice at the state level gives an effective double jeopardy since they're being tried for different crimes, so they'd need to convince two juries that they're innocent instead of just one.

    71. Re:tee-hee by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      The likelihood is that Tubes was simply far too blatant with his shady deals. So blatant that even the masses began to notice.

      Well, he had a large energy services company (Veco) lift his house and insert a new first floor under it. (How many large energy services companies have come by to lift MY house and insert a new floor? I can't think of a single one, ever.)

      Then then there was the company's CEO pleading guilty to a bribery scheme with Alaska politicians.

    72. Re:tee-hee by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 1

      Durbin has consistently come down on the side of strong ethics rules. Of course he can safely do that knowing that the rest of the Senate will make sure it never happens.

    73. Re:tee-hee by evilviper · · Score: 1

      people who have committed crimes over state borders, eg, serial killer who's killed in one state will go to state prison, but one who's killed in multiple states will go federal.

      Erm... Not really.

      If you've committed crimes, across several different states, you are typically tried for your crimes in each individual state. Prosecutors will typically agree to extradite the criminal to the state with the strongest case, and/or harshest penalties, first.

      To end up in federal prison for murder, you generally have to have committed the crime on federal property, such as on an airline, Indian Reservation lands, a train, territorial waters, mailing a bomb through the USPS (even in-state) etc. There's also the "civil rights" cases, when the state cannot prosecute for some reason, giving the feds the a chance.

      Again, tax evasion, computer hacking, within single state = state prison, across state borders will get you to federal.

      In the US, we pay both state and federal taxes. If you lie on your federal (IRS) income-tax returns, you're going to federal prison, even if you've never been outside your home state. If you lie on your state income tax, and then flee the state, the feds still don't have any particular jurisdiction (though you probably risk extradition if you are found).

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    74. Re:tee-hee by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Leavenworth is a federal prison. I don't know where you get the idea that Federal prison is soft or how you managed to get modded informative for that patently false nonsense. I can only assume that you are confused by Alcatraz being a recreational area now.

      The thing is. Ted Stevens is not going to Leavenworth. If the case of Michael Milken was any indication, and by the way Milken was much much younger when he was sent to Federal Prison than Ted Stevens is now, Milken was sent to a minimum security work camp in Pleasanton -- California. There it is rumored he was housed in a full apartment and the prison guards supplied him with any prostitutes he wanted. I take it you didn't ask for a special tour of that Pleasanton Federal facility the last time you were in the San Francisco Bay Area.

    75. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those statistics don't mention anything about the characteristics of first-time offenders. There's been plenty of investigative reports detailing how the prison system can often take non-violent offenders and turn them violent. And our treatment of felons makes it very difficult for them to get decent jobs once they're released, thereby increasing the chances that they'll resort to violent behavior to make money.

      Any discussion of what type of criminals are part of which system should deal with first-time offenders only since data on repeat offenders is tainted by the type of prison the offender was sent to.

    76. Re:tee-hee by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you murder a US government employee, you can be tried in federal courts and sent to a federal prison. I've read that murdering someone with diplomatic immunity is also handled by the feds, which sorta makes sense.

      But yeah, most murders are tried by the state in which they're committed.

      There was a funny case many decades ago, in which someone shot and killed someone in another state. I think they were California and Nevada, but I could be wrong. Anyway, it turned out that the law in the state that the bullet was fired from said that the case had to be tried in the jurisdiction where the death occurred, while the other state's law said that the trial had to be in the jurisdiction where the killer was. So both states' laws said that the trial had to be in the other state. They changed the wording of their laws very soon after that, of course, but that killer couldn't legally be tried anywhere.

      (Hmmm ... I wonder where I read that. I also wonder whether I could find it again, perhaps online. It's a fun example of why the exact wording can sometimes be important.)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    77. Re:tee-hee by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      middle name: "Little"

      --
      We are all just people.
    78. Re:tee-hee by The+FNP · · Score: 1

      You know, all he's gotta do is drag the trial out for a number of years, until he's either in assisted living, or dead and he'll never go to prison at all.

      --The FNP

    79. Re:tee-hee by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      There you go. Also remember Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Jerry Lee Lewis and gaggles of others. Skin color has nothing to do with it. The only color that really matters is green. Rich people are never guilty.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    80. Re:tee-hee by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point you missed is that their net worth was that high before they became Senators.

      And after they are Senators, they can earn more from giving a single speech then the median American makes in a year. How is that not still an insulting rate of income?

      --
      We are all just people.
    81. Re:tee-hee by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      So yeah, adjusted for income, our justice system is colorblind.

      Or more precisely, it's colorblind: It can only see green.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    82. Re:tee-hee by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      I'm just amazed that Alberto Gonzales and Monica Goodling didn't manage to get a slightly more pliant political hack into whatever federal prosecutor's office handles these things up in Alaska.

      Unfortunately, until their hand-picked lapdogs retire, we're going have 30 more years of their political hacks demeaning the Justice department down here in the Contiguous 48. But, luckily, they must have missed a couple of independent souls up there in Alaska.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    83. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest Politicians

      You make it seem like no politician can have integrity.

      That would mean not a one of them could be trusted by their colleagues, though so many of themselves do trust one another. Perhaps they only don't have integrity with their constituents. But that would be found out soon enough and enough people would get pissed off and do something about it... but they don't.

      Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of self-serving "public servants" but to include an 'Honest Politician' with the utterly fictional is pathetic. It's just hard to try to keep track of where public servants are coming from when they say or do things. Instead of fighting for right you've just lain down and decided to take all of it with a lump of salt - thus ruining your mind towards them and disqualifying yourself from being able to take them to task when they are actually not honest.

      Because you only see all of them one way, you can't see when they are actually doing good. Perhaps it's because you just don't know what good is in the first place.

    84. Re:tee-hee by AmaDaden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You got it backwards. Stupid evil people slowly mess things up. They find small holes in the system that good people have set up. They widen them and abuse them. Then the smart good people notice. They quickly (quick as relative to the amount of time it takes for the problem to arise) fix the holes. Like with the American revolution, trust busting and the Magna Carta.

    85. Re:tee-hee by ya+really · · Score: 1

      The point you missed is that their net worth was that high before they became Senators.

      I think another important point was missed that most of them were congressmen or involved in some other way in the government before they were US Sentators.

    86. Re:tee-hee by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mathematically speaking, political power is the ability to join winning coalitions.

      The people are, then, very powerful indeed.
      The goal then for private individuals and groups seeking power is to steer public opinion.

      The problem is that people aren't, collectively, all that bright. At least they aren't good at paying attention, and the ones that do are often so partisan that even though they might do well on an IQ test. Go to a partisan web site for your side, and look at it objectively. Your political allies, left or right or libertarian, talk foolishly.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    87. Re:tee-hee by ya+really · · Score: 1

      Leavenworth is a federal prison. If you have bothered to watch the news there have been more than a few murder/rapist types that have been going there. I don't know where you get the idea that Federal prison is soft or how you managed to get modded informative for that patently false nonsense.

      Leavenworth, like most Federal prisons, has a camp (aka club fed) attached to it, which is probably where he will go. Currently the former mayor of Camden, NJ is in a camp attached to the FCI in Loretto, PA.

    88. Re:tee-hee by Rhapsody+Scarlet · · Score: 1

      Eh, regardless of his position or wealth do 84 year olds really go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison for white collar crimes?

      Well he may not have ever got his hands dirty personally, but I sure as hell wouldn't think twice about sending Robert Mugabe to one.

    89. Re:tee-hee by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      To quote the late, great Nixon himself,

      "Apparently former Vice-Presidents or Presidents are worth a great deal to law firms."

      The whole process is like horce racing. You don't make too much money off the Derby, but after the race, you put your winner in a green field and make ten million bucks every time he mounts another horse.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    90. Re:tee-hee by sjames · · Score: 1

      You mean you hope and pray reality is nothing like that, but given the crazy way the law is enforced these days, I find it all too likely.

    91. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... The Village People? I'm not sure I see the connection...

    92. Re:tee-hee by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Just read the Forbes article. The money comes from family, business, or investment--unrelated to prior involvement in politics. Few people get rich while they're politicians--most are rich first; many get rich after retiring (consulting jobs, plush board appointments, the lecture circuit). The ones that get rich while in office attract attention, and, as we see here, indictments.

    93. Re:tee-hee by megabulk3000 · · Score: 1

      "he's going to be held in the minimalist minimal security section"

      Me imagining Ted Stevens locked up in some vast warehouse with only a few Dan Flavins or Donald Judds to keep him company, shaking his fist at the grim and barren sky... ... jacking off in the face of the Rule of Law. I like that!

    94. Re:tee-hee by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      >Nixon was piss-poor until well after his becoming vice-president, as his voluntarily disclosed tax returns show. ...and he was not a crook.

    95. Re:tee-hee by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Fortunately when it comes to corruption and greed, the ones at the top whilst they are 'sometimes' willing to work together when it is in their mutual intrests, in the dog eat dog part of society it is far more profitable to tear one of their own to bits rather than a nameless valueless nobody.

      There are only so many positions in government and to occupy one some else has to be thrown out or prevented from stabbing you in the back to gain it, and the more corrupt it is the more you have to watch your own party let alone the opposition.

      Take for example the way it appears that the VP of the US has managed to line his pockets via Haliburton and the Iraq war, how many other politicians would have liked to remove him and take his place, not for a more honest government but so that they could gain access to those profits.

      So the trick is as citizens how to get the honest ones when you can or a very least get the bad ones to destroy each other in their blind rabid greed, don't let them get settled in, keep them one their toes, get them to stab each other in the back before they can do too much damage to the rest of us. The worst you can do as a citizen is to play blind party politics rather than make each and every individual politician fight for their position, you know, divide an conquer ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    96. Re:tee-hee by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is no evidence to support your claims here. Are you forgeting how the system works?

      The very next administration (actually any at anytime) can simply fire any or every district prosecutor of official under the federal government's control. Clinton did this when he took office and contrary to your assertion, the vast majority of Federal prosecutors are still Clinton appointees. Bush never cleaned house and put his people in like other president's have. Even during the so called scandel where Bush started replacing prosecutors, he didn't break 10% of them.

    97. Re:tee-hee by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why would you describe that as insulting? Their experience and knowledge is considerably more then that of an average median income level earner or less.

    98. Re:tee-hee by ajss · · Score: 1

      "smart good people" don't make systems with holes in. Evil people put the holes in, usually for the benefit of some special interest group in return for votes/favours.

    99. Re:tee-hee by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Italy is about 2 steps away from being in South America. What a country.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    100. Re:tee-hee by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

      "smart good people" don't make systems with holes in.

      They try to but smart != perfect. For example think about patents. When they were first set up they did not know about software and all the problems that could arise. Also it was already established that a patent would only last for so long but the hole was widened by extending patent length to insane proportions. You could argue that this is a case of a hole being added but I tend to look at it more as an existing problem being abused and worsened.

    101. Re:tee-hee by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      I am sorry that you are misinformed. The Goodling/Gonzales scandal is primary due to the fact that the hiring and firing of career prosecutors (i.e. not political appointments) was done through a political process.

      On July 28, 2008, a Justice Department report concluded that Goodling had violated federal law and Justice Department policy by discriminating against job applicants who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists. Goodling improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions, the report concluded.

      Wikipedia

      Thank you for giving me the opportunity to educate you about this topic.

      Regards.

      P.S. To keep this on-topic and to clarify my earlier post: I was expressing surprise that the current corrupted Justice Department higher ups allowed this prosecution to take place. I guess I was too cynical; I guess Stevens was just too corrupt to be protected.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    102. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might well be because the cynicism is deserved rather than because it's "cool".

      Just because some people are still naive enough to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Honest Politicians doesn't mean all of us should disable our critical thinking skills.

      Yeah, because it takes a lot of critical thinking to be deeply cynical at all times, even with little or nothing to go on.

    103. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because it takes a lot of critical thinking to be deeply cynical at all times, even with little or nothing to go on.

      232 years of national history is a nice start.

    104. Re:tee-hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a tool that compares the wealth of members of congress to that of the "Average American"

      http://www.fortune535.com

    105. Re:tee-hee by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Honest Politicians

      You make it seem like no politician can have integrity.

      It does seem to be the case that that is a quality that precludes one from being successful in politics at any level above, I don't know, the local school board.

      That would mean not a one of them could be trusted by their colleagues, though so many of themselves do trust one another.

      Or, more likely, they know they can count on each other to do whatever is in their own best interest.

      Perhaps they only don't have integrity with their constituents. But that would be found out soon enough and enough people would get pissed off and do something about it... but they don't.

      Apathy on the part of the American Idle that couldn't identify corruption with both hands and a flashlight does not imply integrity on the part of our so-called leadership. To claim it does is... well, frightening, actually.

      Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of self-serving "public servants" but to include an 'Honest Politician' with the utterly fictional is pathetic. It's just hard to try to keep track of where public servants are coming from when they say or do things. Instead of fighting for right you've just lain down and decided to take all of it with a lump of salt - thus ruining your mind towards them and disqualifying yourself from being able to take them to task when they are actually not honest.

      Taking politicians for task when they are not honest would preclude any other activity in existence, including sleeping.

      Because you only see all of them one way, you can't see when they are actually doing good. Perhaps it's because you just don't know what good is in the first place.

      Then prove me wrong. Give me an example of an honest politician from the State level or higher.

    106. Re:tee-hee by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Even if the holes are accidental, by refusing to fix them -- to exacerbate them, even -- when their existence is revealed, they forfeit any claim on "good"

    107. Re:tee-hee by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

      "good smart people" do not refuse to fix things. The holes are issues that the good smart people did not see at first. When they finally do see them either 1) they demand things get fixed but since everything is running smoothly at the moment no one cares and nothing is done or 2) They are long dead by the time it is clear there is a problem.

      It is evil stupid people that refuse to fix them and that exacerbate them. Because either they are profiting from them (making them evil) or they don't see the problem(making them stupid).

    108. Re:tee-hee by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      1) He's up for re-election.
      2) His only primary opponent is a little-known business man.
      3) The primary is Aug 26 so it's too late to make any changes.
      4) He is in a tight reelection battle with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D), who in recent polls has edged slightly ahead.
      5) Democrats are in charge of congress.

      I'll let you connect the dots.

      Just a note that I don't support either Stevens or anyone involved in such corruption, but I find it oddly coincidental that right at election time these charges are brought.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    109. Re:tee-hee by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

    110. Re:tee-hee by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Do they actually contribute as much to society in the course of that one or two hour at most speech as much as a median income earner, like say an elementary school teacher contributes in an entire year? Do they contribute as much a cop walking a beat? How many months does it take you to earn $55,000 and does a former Senator's single speech match your efforts and contributions over those months? There are a few speeches that fall into the culturally significant category that contribute more than most people do in a lifetime "I have a Dream" comes to mind, but they are very few and far between and never delivered by old politicians.

      --
      We are all just people.
    111. Re:tee-hee by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I am sorry that you are misinformed. The Goodling/Gonzales scandal is primary due to the fact that the hiring and firing of career prosecutors (i.e. not political appointments) was done through a political process.

      I can see that you can read but I can't see that you actually pay attention. First of all, Wikipedia isn't a good source of information. If your relying on it, your going to be wrong a portion of the time.

      This has no bearing on what I have said anyways. First of all, Any administration does have the ability to dismiss anyone under the executive. Second, it has happened in the past by several presidents and will continue to happen in the future. Third, if you would have read the article you linked to, you would have understood that the problem wasn't the Firing of the prosecutors, it was the hiring practices used to instituting the replacements. You even quoted a relevant section detailing exactly that proving that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. In this case, your the horse and knowledge is the water. So let me point out the important parts here and then I will provide you with a link to a simple google search showing other administrations firing prosecutors when they take office.

      On July 28, 2008, a Justice Department report concluded that Goodling had violated federal law and Justice Department policy by discriminating against job applicants> who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists. Goodling improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions, the report concluded.

      Do you see were it said applicants and not existing workers? Further more, when you look you will see that it was something like 8 people being dismissed ans replaced, not all 93 of them or their subordinates.

      Further more, since you like Wikipedia, I will use it instead of Google to educate you on the subject. Here, under the article describing the controversy It actually says that they are replaceable and lists other recent administrations who have done so.

      By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted.[69] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.

      Thank you for giving me the opportunity to educate you about this topic.:0

      P.S. To keep this on-topic and to clarify my earlier post: I was expressing surprise that the current corrupted Justice Department higher ups allowed this prosecution to take place. I guess I was too cynical; I guess Stevens was just too corrupt to be protected.

      I don't see it like that. The corruption, if any, in the justice department seems to be only used to protect itself and the administration. There isn't a pattern of usage outside of that for protectionist reasons. On the other hand, anything stacked currently can be undone by any successor to the administration. Other presidents have done so in recent times and they will continue to do so in the future.

    112. Re:tee-hee by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I guess I should answer your questions in order but the short answer would be depends.

      Do they actually contribute as much to society in the course of that one or two hour at most speech as much as a median income earner, like say an elementary school teacher contributes in an entire year?

      Depends, If the speech is the motivation for the elementary school teacher's going into or staying in the job field and putting up with the all the nuances of the job, then yes. But it would likely have to be an elementary school teacher who makes the claim to that effect.

      Do they contribute as much a cop walking a beat?

      Again, it depends, if one cop is inspired to walk that beat because of something they said, then yes.

      How many months does it take you to earn $55,000 and does a former Senator's single speech match your efforts and contributions over those months?

      It takes me about 8 months to earn that amount. And yes, A congressman's speech of opportunity and the value of small business operators is what made me decide to go into the field I am in and the way I am doing it. Actually, it didn't make me do anything, it opened my eyes to the possibilities and I acted because of it. Besides, $55,000 is a little misleading number. I havn't seen a congress critter speak to less then 200 or so people at a time. That comes out to about $275 a head. Do you think a Congressman's speech could be worth $275? Many people pay ten times that much to buy into programs that are nothing more then pep talks about how to do something that your inherently have to learn to do on your own anyways.

      There are a few speeches that fall into the culturally significant category that contribute more than most people do in a lifetime "I have a Dream" comes to mind, but they are very few and far between and never delivered by old politicians.

      The politician's speeches don't have to be on the same level as MLK's. It doesn't have to be culturally impactful nor does it have to benefit anyone outside the intended audience.

      In fact, in a free world with Free Speech, it only needs to be worth it to the people who are hiring them to make the speeches. If they are speaking to your 500 member investment club or shareholders meeting, then you have to ask if $110 a person is worth it. If not, then don't show and don't pay them. If it is, then show up, pay them, organize something or whatever. The content of the speech as well as the value will differ from people to people to speaker to speaker and so on. It is up to an individual group to decide if the value is there not you or me as outsiders.

    113. Re:tee-hee by ktismael · · Score: 1

      Sorry to be the syntax Nazi here, but I suspect he should be "discreet" about it, rather than split in separate and distinct pieces. Not that it invalidates your point, you know, just saying.

    114. Re:tee-hee by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      "Cynicism or Critical Thinking" does not pass for intelligence or objectivity. But it can pass for just plain "Critical" or even "prejudiced". Or any of the thesaurus alternates such as: "biased, intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded, discriminatory, unfair, opinionated, partisan, blinkered (disapproving), unjust."

    115. Re:tee-hee by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      You got it backwards. Stupid evil people slowly mess things up. They find small holes in the system that good people have set up. They widen them and abuse them. Then the smart good people notice. They quickly (quick as relative to the amount of time it takes for the problem to arise) fix the holes. Like with the American revolution, trust busting and the Magna Carta.

      ah, so where are the smart, good people on the drug war? how about the destruction of social security? the foreign oil dependence? offshoring? nafta? the dmca?

      i'm sorry, but the evidence just doesn't bear that out.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    116. Re:tee-hee by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

      Drug war.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis Progress has been made very recently towards the legalization of medicinal marijuana.
      destruction of social security
      Economics has been made a large issue this election.It's only a matter of time before this is looked at.
      foreign oil dependence and offshoring
      Only recently has oil become such a huge issue. They are starting to work on it now.
      nafta
      Not seen as a big enough issue yet. Still many can be seen that have taken up the cause.
      DMCA
      Well you read Slashdot. lots are fighting it.

      Remember these things take time. If you really think that these issues are so important be one of the smart good people helping move things along.

    117. Re:tee-hee by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      how much time?

      and all i see in this post is lip service.

      the only progress i've seen on marijuana is states lying to their citizens and getting them tossed into prison under federal charges.

      every single election they say what you said about how social security is 'bound to be looked at', and the only "looking" i've seen is hungry republican eyes looking to give the scraps to corporations.

      Are you saying the mid 70's never happened with oil? it's been a major issue for 4 decades and running... theyre burying their heads in the sand and selling my generation and yours down the river.

      Nafta not seen as a big issue? it's been a drain on the middle class for over a decade, and what have they done? they've expanded the program with cafta, ausfta, etc.

      DMCA.. there's a difference between "fighting" it with hackers and actually making progress in the legislatures. Not only are public interest groups shuffled into the broom closet, but with initiatives like acta theyre taking them out of that closet and moving them to the outhouse down the street.. the really smelly one the maintenance workers are afraid to go near.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  2. Down the tubes.. by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not just a truck you can dump things on....

    It's a house, that you can add things to...apparently for free.

  3. Well, there goes another political career... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 4, Funny

    down the...ummm...drain.

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    1. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by adamstew · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno about down the career down the drain...The man is like 82...it's more like a forced retirement, with a free retirement home security package!

    2. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by tinkerghost · · Score: 2, Informative

      If he's convicted, there's a good chance he'll lose his Congressional Pension - given that the charges are essentially bribery & corruption.

    3. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by squidguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Will be interesting to see, as the ultimate act of hypocrisy, if the next President pardons him ala Clinton's forgiveness of bigtime Chicago Machine Dem Dan Rostenkowski, who now collects his congressional pension despite similar acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rostenkowski). Sen Stevens likely won't be convicted in time for President Bush to possibly react.

    4. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If he's convicted, there's a good chance he'll lose his Congressional Pension - given that the charges are essentially bribery & corruption.

      That might actually mean something if he wasn't older than dirt and already near death ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by jaredmauch · · Score: 1

      If he's convicted or not, what matters is if he's pardoned. He can be pardoned in advance of a trial. Take Nixon as an exmaple. One does not need to go through with the full judicial process prior to a pardon being issued.

    6. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by mapsjanhere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to be convicted of anything to receive a presidential pardon (see Nixon, Richard).
      One good option for him is to win reelection, then resign to allow the Republican Governor to appoint another Republican to serve out his term. For that Bush will grant him a pardon on the last day "for the 40 years of service to the country", and he will fade away.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    7. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Meh. Big deal. He'll get hired on as a "consultant" to one of the companies he arranged sweetheart deals for.

      Hopefully, he'll be prohibited from lobbying -- I'm not sure if there are rules for prohibiting certain criminals from lobbying.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Actually the charges are specifically NOT bribery. Bribery requires proof of specific quid pro quo. In other words, they have to have hard evidence that Tubes Stevens received some type of compensation in order to vote a particular way for instance. They don't have that, or more likely they don't want to dig hard enough or deep enough to find such evidence as what they have likely will be enough to essentially end his career.

      He also isn't charged with corruption specifically either. He's being charged with lying to investigators. That's it. At least for now.

    9. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by akgooseman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      New law in Alaska doesn't let the Governor appoint a replacement for empty congressional seats. People were unhappy when newly elected Governor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter, Lisa, to the Senate seat he vacated in order to move into the Governor's Mansion.

    10. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by Evildonald · · Score: 1

      His long-term political career was nothing but a pipe dream.

    11. Re:Well, there goes another political career... by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      New law in Alaska doesn't let the Governor appoint a replacement for empty congressional seats. People were unhappy when newly elected Governor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter, Lisa, to the Senate seat he vacated in order to move into the Governor's Mansion.

      I wondered if that would sit wrong with the people of Alaska, and I'm glad that something was done. From your name (and knowledge) I would guess you're an Alaskan - congratulations on doing the right thing. I figured the only possible scenario this would've been acceptable is if she was an active politician herself and actually been the appropriate replacement. Other than that scenario it reeks like hell.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
  4. Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 3, Funny

    AHHH No more bridges to no where. I think I am going to cry. I wanted to visit that uninhabitabed ice berg in alaska.

    1. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We actually saw a little wooden walkway on the side of the road going over some (protected) marsh land. The size of the plaque thanking the Senator for his work in securing financing for the walkway was comparable in size to the structure itself... Who knows, how much that little piece cost the federal government, and how much the grateful contractors have contributed to the guy's campaign, him personally, and those he loves.

      I must admit, he played the dimwits "protecting the wilderness" (without ever setting foot there) very well.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      lol yah...our government never ceases to amaze me. Even the senate's most senior republican is dirty. I mean in general not just him. Our entire government spent so much money on pork like "bridges to nowhere", "bike trails", fountains, etc.

      It is just horrible that at a time when the national debt is so high we still throw money around like its nothing.

    3. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by spiffyman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but do you really think bike trails and fountains are pork?

      No, they're not investments in science in engineering - which we surely need more of - but these two contribute to the public's physical and mental health, respectively. No small matter, that.

      --
      So you can laugh all you want to...
    4. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by 45mm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is just horrible that at a time when the national debt is so high we still throw money around like its nothing.

      Except that it IS nothing to them. They'll just make more money and/or sell us out to countries who hate us! What do they care? The American taxpayer is footing the bill for their well-being. And pensions. I say, put them on Social Security like the rest of us, and allow their salaries to be commensurate to their approval rating. We'll get some useful things happening then.

    5. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But they've got sod all to do with the federal government. Recreational bike trails and fountains are inherently local.

    6. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by spiffyman · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say "inherently," but your point is well-taken.

      Still, some questions might remain. For instance, what about such attractions in D.C.? Or at our national parks? Or what should the federal government do if the states refuse to act on what is arguably a set of legitimate needs?

      --
      So you can laugh all you want to...
    7. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those items should be funded by local government. Not federal.

    8. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between a "legitimate need" and just something so you say you diverted money towards your state. I'm sorry but a multi-million dollar bridge to a uninhabitable island is not a "legitimate need" by any standard.

      And if people want to build fountains and bike trails have their local governments pay for it. It has nothing to do with the federal level it is simply a luxury that locals want. Should the federal government pay for every little museum, board walk, and beach hut because "it is a social investment"

    9. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Power corrupts — I prefer Republicans strongly — but being in power for this long is not healthy.

      This guy, along with a few others (Kennedy-cough-cough), are the "poster children" for term-limits on not just presidency, but other elected offices.

      In a remote state such as Alaska, where residents are paid to live there and pay neither income nor sales tax, his constituents have especially little reason to care for his wasting (and, likely, outright stealing) federal government's money, as long as they get a bit of it too.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      It is just horrible that at a time when the national debt is so high we still throw money around like its nothing.

      Except that it IS nothing to them. They'll just make more money and/or sell us out to countries who hate us! What do they care? The American taxpayer is footing the bill for their well-being. And pensions. I say, put them on Social Security like the rest of us, and allow their salaries to be commensurate to their approval rating. We'll get some useful things happening then.

      Yes but than a bill will to passed for that :P

      What you don't understand with our flawed system is that their is no accountability as the only people who regulate politicians...our politicians.

    11. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or what should the federal government do if the states refuse to act on what is arguably a set of legitimate needs?

      Not a damn thing.

      If the states are derelict in their responsibility then the citizens of those states can vote in a new state government. If they continue to vote in an irresponsible government that doesn't attend to their needs, then I'm not shedding a tear. People tend to get the government they deserve.

      The only time the Feds have an obligation to intervene is when the states are abridging the rights of the citizens of the United States. A state's minority not getting what they want is does not give carte blanche to the Feds to "remedy" the situation.

    12. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by spiffyman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't straw man me - I never said bridges to nowhere weren't pork. You and I are 100% on the same page there. But my questions remain unanswered - what do we do about national parks, interstate trails & parks, the D.C.?

      And our own disagreement brings another question to mind: how do we see determine which projects are legitimate expenses for government and which are "simply a luxury?" Maybe we should choose some group of people to represent us and vote on it...

      --
      So you can laugh all you want to...
    13. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      Power corrupts — I prefer Republicans strongly — but being in power for this long is not healthy.

      This guy, along with a few others (Kennedy-cough-cough), are the "poster children" for term-limits on not just presidency, but other elected offices.

      In a remote state such as Alaska, where residents are paid to live there and pay neither income nor sales tax, his constituents have especially little reason to care for his wasting (and, likely, outright stealing) federal government's money, as long as they get a bit of it too.

      So basically alaska is a state primarily funded by the rest of the United in which their inhabitants are simply leeching off the rest of the US. Being that they receive so much federal money.

    14. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they're that useful, then local governments can pay for them, unless they're in national parks. I'm no small-government fanatic, but even I don't see why my taxes should help improve the lives of cyclists in Idaho.

    15. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't straw man me - I never said bridges to nowhere weren't pork. You and I are 100% on the same page there. But my questions remain unanswered - what do we do about national parks, interstate trails & parks, the D.C.?

      And our own disagreement brings another question to mind: how do we see determine which projects are legitimate expenses for government and which are "simply a luxury?" Maybe we should choose some group of people to represent us and vote on it...

      I'm sorry I did not mean that in general these projects were all bad. But it is obvious between a legitimate need and pork. When you are building random stuff in the middle for no particular reason. And the federal government typically doesn't pay for projects like that.

      Heck I am all for beautifying a city. I live near Weston...the poster child for a planned city and they did a nice job. But did the state of Florida or the United States government pay for it...no. Weston has higher property taxes and its residents ay for it. But thats how it should be. They footed the bill on their own city. I have never heard anyone from Weston complain that the taxes were too hgih because they wanted to live in a city with nice parks, land scaping, fountains, and bike trails.

      My point was simply Senators should not be having the sole goal of making the most money for their state. Sure they are going to be an advocate for their state but that doesn't mean that they can get away with stealing money from the federal government just add figures to his campaign. going to be an advocate for their state but that doesn't mean that they can get away with stealing money from the federal government just add figures to his campaign.

    16. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Should the federal government pay for every little museum, board walk, and beach hut because "it is a social investment"

      My first reaction is 'hell no!', but then I think about how much money the federal government steals...err takes from the states through taxes. The states then have to jump through hoops to get that money sent back to them. Look at how states have to comply with federal laws to get road money back that should have never left the state in the first place. Schools are another good example. At the end of the day it's all about control. The federal gov. wants more of it and sadly the states are for the most part letting them have it.

    17. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So basically alaska is a state primarily funded by the rest of the United in which their inhabitants are simply leeching off the rest of the US. Being that they receive so much federal money.

      Which describes almost every "red" state in the Union.

      This helps explain why the Republicans are no longer the party of small government. It strikes me as rich irony that the party that decries the existence of the 'welfare state' is dependent upon welfare from the democtratic states in order to keep the pork coming in, which is what keeps them in office.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    18. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I modded you informative instead of funny by accident. What a waste of a precious mod point!

    19. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      yes just like how the federal goverment made rural states put up speed limits just so the government could fund their roads. I mean obviously were rural enough that Speed Limits weren't really warranted but the federal government wanted to exert control.

      So yah I see both sides of this issue.

      But what I'm truely talking about is porks and pet projects.

    20. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Depending on the context, anything can be pork. If the point of legistlation is to provide more bike trails and fountains, me getting bike trails and fountains for my area probably is not pork, if the legistlation is a healthcare for the poor plan, those random fountains that somehow became a part of the plan are pork to the extreme.

    21. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by MBCook · · Score: 1

      Maybe if nearly every building and park he got built with public money wasn't named after him I could say it was good. I'm having trouble finding a list with a quick Google (because everything is about his insane bridge project).

      I'm a Republican and I disagree with most people here on /. about politics but I don't remember running across anything good about Stevens. I remember reading about tons of ethics investigations. I know about a ton of pork. I know half of Alaska is named after him at this point.

      Last year CBS Nightly News was doing segments on pork. When they got to Stevens they spent like 2 minutes straight reading a list of buildings with "Ted Stevens" in their name. It was amazing.

      I hope he gets thrown out of the Senate. He doesn't seem to have been acting in the best interest of the country (at least fiscally) for a very long time.

      His own fiscal interest though...

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    22. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which describes almost every "red" state in the Union.

      Citation needed. Badly.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    23. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      So basically alaska is a state primarily funded by the rest of the United in which their inhabitants are simply leeching off the rest of the US. Being that they receive so much federal money.

      Which describes almost every "red" state in the Union.

      This helps explain why the Republicans are no longer the party of small government. It strikes me as rich irony that the party that decries the existence of the 'welfare state' is dependent upon welfare from the democtratic states in order to keep the pork coming in, which is what keeps them in office.

      Hypocrisy is what lubricates the gears that keep our government going.

    24. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by mi · · Score: 1

      So basically alaska is a state primarily funded by the rest of the United [...]

      No, that does not follow from my post at all.

      And if you read the links I posted, you would've known, that it is not true either.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    25. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends, I happen to live next to the second most visited national park, the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. It's a great resource for the people of northern Ohio. A bike trail through the national park is obviously a federal matter since only the federal government can build in the park. That's the difference between a national forest and a national park, the government does things to make the park accessible and useful for the citizens.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    26. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by afidel · · Score: 1

      In return the send us seafood and oil, kind of like some other place I can think of, only the subsidies to Alaska cost us a LOT less than that slightly warmer place....

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    27. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      The American taxpayer is footing the bill for their well-being. And pensions. I say, put them on Social Security like the rest of us, and allow their salaries to be commensurate to their approval rating. We'll get some useful things happening then.

      I want exit polls and if a politician gets higher levels of disapproval they'd get anywhere from all assets stripped from them, exile, automatic extended jail sentence (at the min. the length that they were in office) or the death penalty. We wouldn't need term limits then and the voting public would have the option of getting rid of those politicians that they hate. Though I'm sure we'd set that death penalty option at like a 90-95% disapproval rating instead of 60-70% disapproval rating.

    28. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right nothing comes from alaska... Seafood, oil, forest products.
      The people in ultra dense urban areas are definitely 100% self sufficient, not leeching at all.

    29. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but do you really think bike trails and fountains are pork?

      Yes, almost by definition. "Pork Barrel" spending means federal spending for local projects to benefit the congressman's own constituents so they'll vote for him. In theory a congressman writing a law that gives funding for bike trails to the states or the national park service to spend as they see fit wouldn't be "pork barrel". IMO still not within the Federal government's mandate but not "Pork". But as is more usual an amendment submitted by a congressman to fund a particular bike path that happens to be in his district... well that IS pork barrel spending.

      The problem is the really the first scenario though rather than the second. It's arguably the congressman's *job* to get that pork. They are called "representatives" for a reason, they represent the interests of their local community. The problem arises when we make everything a federal issue rather than a state or local one. There's no reason why the federal government should be spending one red cent on bike paths' (outside of localities under their direct control like military bases or DC). It's a purely local issue better dealt with by local governments and completely outside the scope of the powers given to the federal government. But when our view of the federal governments jurisdiction changed to be all encompassing and we now write laws like the first scenario where the federal government becomes in effect everyone's local government... well of course the congressmen will represent their communities (as arguably they should) to see that they get their share of that federal money (and a bit more if they have the pull.)

    30. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by mazarin5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's an obnoxiously laid out page that shows many dollars a state received per dollar paid out in 2005. I'm sure you can find a red state/blue state map somewhere and do the comparison yourself.

      http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

      Actually, if you would compare that to the 2004 election and post red/blue totals, that would be great.

      --
      Fnord.
    31. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. There are others. Rest assured that regardless of which party is in control of the budget, there will be pork.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    32. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by mazarin5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's an obnoxiously laid out page that shows many dollars a state received per dollar paid out in 2005. I'm sure you can find a red state/blue state map somewhere and do the comparison yourself.

      http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

      Actually, if you would compare that to the 2004 election and post red/blue totals, that would be great.

      Actually, this is much better, and has an interesting map to boot. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf (PDF)

      --
      Fnord.
    33. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check the federal funds report (latest data is 2006, published early July). Note that Louisiana and Mississippi figures are abnormal compared to historical data due to Katrina, and this only covers expenditures, not federal taxes paid from the state in question.

      If you want to see balance of payment figures, check this link out. New Jersey (my home state), for example, only receives $0.61 for every dollar remitted to the federal government.

      Here's a nice slideshow that shows 25 years of historical BOP rankings for each state (flash required).

      The correlation between "red state" and "high ranking in funds received vs. remitted" is extremely strong... I'd seen a map of red/blue states where the data was plugged in that made it ridiculously apparent, but couldn't find the link quickly & can't be bothered to do the same myself right now. I'm sure it's around somewhere if you care to spend some time googling.

      Funny, though, how it's primarily due to the higher incomes in the blue states and the progressive tax system... and the Republicans are the ones against a progressive tax system that benefits their states. Just goes to confirm that the rural poor in the US vote against their own economic interests.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    34. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

      I Googled this, then just took a quick look at places like Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky. Pretty self-explanatory.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    35. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Which describes almost every "red" state in the Union.

      True, but of what meaning is a "state" when it comes to federal income tax? Who cares if inhabitants of California are paying more? It's well known that salaries in California, New York, DC, etc are highly inflated to deal with cost of living. That's why they pay more income tax.

      Remember that the top 1% of income earners pay almost 40% of income tax. So yeah, California might pay twice as much as it receives, but in reality it's a tiny portion of California paying 100 times as much as it receives, and the rest of California mooching just like the poor people in every other state.

    36. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Skater · · Score: 4, Informative

      Didn't that "bridge to nowhere" actually go to the town's AIRPORT? Yep.

      Sounds like a legitimate need to me.

    37. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see that same data with outliers excluded, say the top 5% and bottom 5% of income earners. I suspect that would change the picture somewhat.

    38. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      It's well known that salaries in California, New York, DC, etc are highly inflated to deal with cost of living. That's why they pay more income tax.

      you mistake correlatiom for causation. The high cost of living in CA, NY, DC, NJ, etc do not necessarily cause high salaries, though they are correlated to high salaries.

      But, even if we accept your premise that there is no problem here because the differences are due to the progressive tax system... would it not then follow that federal "aid" to these areas should also be higher, since the cost of providing services in those areas is higher?

      You can't consider the cost of living and inflated wages without considering the other half of the equation, which is the cost of services provided. If you were to normalize for cost of living, then the ratio of taxes paid:benefits received should be the same for the wealthy/expensive areas as for the poor/inexpensive areas.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    39. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      It really depends on where they are located. A bike trail through a mosquito and aligator infested swamp is pork.

    40. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      hmm 400 million. I am pretty sure that is more money than the ferry would cost in 40 years. Not to mention the maintaince would probobly exceed the running cost of the ferries. And besides they are considering the world's most expansive bridge for a place with almost no one. Sorry still not a good reason to spend half a billion dollars.

    41. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      But that would invalidate the whole purpose of the comparison. The fact that the top earners are included is vital to the concept of the progressive tax system and the concept of the "welfare state".

      The whole point was to highlight the contrast of the Republican position wrt these concepts versus the actual implementation of these concepts, which favors states that vote Republican. When you exclude the top and bottom earners, then the basis for the contrast is gone, since you have eliminated the biggest portion of the progressive tax system.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    42. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      Jesus that almost me puke. You should submit those pages for a story, or ask Obama for some money. Any chance of me voting republican has just been flushed.

    43. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Here's an interesting summary of Federal spending in Alaska from 2001. Also this has some analysis of how Federal spending is broken up.

      Overall, a lot of Federal money is spent in Alaska, but not much (~20% at most) could be classified as "pork." There are several military bases, the missile defense project, a large native population, and then the typical things that the Federal government funds in other states.

      I think the real issue is that Alaska doesn't have a large enough internal industry to match the Federal dollars that are available. Drilling in ANWAR or a natural gas pipeline would probably decrease the ratio of federal to state spending for at least a few years.

    44. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Who said nothing comes from Alaska?

      Not me.

      If you want to compare federal spending versus GDP for each state, you're welcome to. You'll find that Alaska ranks poorly there as well.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    45. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Myopic · · Score: 2, Informative

      The bridge was not to nowhere, it linked the town's population to the town's airport. Also, there were a few people living on the island, and more people would move to the island if there were a bridge to it. (I know this, and more, because I live in that region of Alaska.)

      Still, it wasn't worth nearly as much as it was going to cost, so it was right and proper to kill the project (and would be right and proper to kill a zillion other similarly not-worth-the-cost federal projects).

      But, to be clear, "bridge to nowhere" is a marketing term, and like most marketing terms, describes exactly the opposite of reality.

      For what it's wroth, Uncle Ted has a longstanding reputation for two things: first, he is amazingly effective at getting federal funds for projects in my state; second, he is very careful to keep his ethical nose clean. But, it seems like after so long in the Senate, he may have messed up and crossed the line; if so, we'll have Senator Begich.

    46. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      citation.

      Most of the "red" states receive more Federal money than they pay in taxes, versus most of the "blue" states that pay more in taxes than they get back.

    47. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      If I get the time I'll do a more complete analysis (with election results from 2000-2006) and map it out by state, median income, and election history. I'll probably write it up and post it as a journal entry sometime in September, but I'll need to find a hosting site for the maps & graphs. Not sure if I'll have time to code an interactive map, but we'll see.

      The funny thing is, though, that it's liberal tax policies that have contributed the most to the disparity... pork is less of a factor than progressive taxes are.

      For what it's worth, I'm in favor of a progressive tax system, I just think it's wrong for the Republicans to reap the rewards while decrying the system that rewards them.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    48. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by mi · · Score: 1

      that it's liberal tax policies that have contributed the most to the disparity.

      Perhaps, the Republican lawmakers' talent for extracting the pork has something to do with it too...

      I just think it's wrong for the Republicans to reap the rewards while decrying the system that rewards them.

      Unless they perpetuate the system by reaping its rewards, sincerely denouncing it is not only not wrong, but perfectly right and honest. "This sucks, but as long as it is forced upon all of us, I'm going to milk it for all its worth."

      I'm in favor of a progressive tax system

      Meanwhile, it is remarkably stupid for the Democrats to glorify the system, that costs them as dearly as you make it sound...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    49. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right, it did go to the towns airport.

      Which was already adequately served by ferry service.

      And the ferry service could have been expanded at a fraction of the cost of the bridge.

      It was unnecessary pork that signified an enormous disrespect for the idea of spending tax dollars efficiently.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    50. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by rantingkitten · · Score: 1
      Here's a nice visual.

      Or there's this quote:

      For every dollar paid in taxes, red state North Dakota gets $2.03 back from the government. The rest of the Top Ten Federal Welfare Queens are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, Arkansas, and Virginia, all red states, all receiving between $1.89 to $1.47 back for every dollar. (To be fair, the District of Columbia is the biggest welfare queen, at $6.17 on the dollar, but it's not really a state, so I'm not going to consider it in my research.)

      By contrast, eight of the Top Ten Federal Sugar Daddies (states that get less back in federal money than taxes paid) are blue states. New Jersey only gets 62 back on its one dollar investment. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, California, and New York all receive 64 to 81 back for each dollar taxed.

      Another interesting analysis may be found here, using data that is available to the public.

      There are plenty of studies you can find on this. I don't think anyone is seriously denying that the welfare queens of the union tend to be red states; it's just that the conservatives try really hard not to draw attention to that fact.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    51. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, it is remarkably stupid for the Democrats to glorify the system, that costs them as dearly as you make it sound...

      Why? If they believe in a progressive tax system, and redistribution of wealth, then they accept that this costs them (if they are wealthy or in wealthy states). It is not stupid to glorify the system that they believe in. Now, if they were to complain about the benefits to the poor states, while maintaining that the progressive system is ideal, then you've got a point, since it's hypocrisy again. And guess what? Plenty of Democrats do that (see Lautenberg, D-NJ).

      The question for progressives is, "What is the difference between effective spending and pork?"

      Unless they perpetuate the system by reaping its rewards, sincerely denouncing it is not only not wrong, but perfectly right and honest. "This sucks, but as long as it is forced upon all of us, I'm going to milk it for all its worth."

      Unless they perpetuate the system ..., sincerely denouncing it is not only wrong, but perfectly right and honest

      Huh? It's not only wrong, but right?

      "This sucks, but as long as it is forced upon all of us, I'm going to milk it for all its worth."

      As I addressed in a response to an earlier post you made (modded "funny" since it is ludicrous that it is not hypocritical), this concept is hypocritical. In my opinion, it is completely wrong. It is terrible for one to espouse a principal but violate that principle when it benefits them. Please explain to me, how that particular example of hypocrisy can be right. As for honesty, admitting you're doing something bad may be honest, but it does not make the commission of the bad act any less wrong.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    52. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by thomas.craig · · Score: 1

      Which describes almost every "red" state in the Union.

      Citation needed. Badly.

      Okay, here's a link to a special report by the Tax Foundation (a very conservative anti-tax organization, btw). Line up the states by the ratio of federal spending to taxes paid. The highest ratios? New Mexico, Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, the Dakotas, Virginia, West Virginia, Montana, Idaho. The lowest ratios? New York, California, Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Mass. The correlation isn't perfect (e.g. Texas is receives slightly less in federal expenditures than it pays in taxes, and obviously, it's pretty durned red. Iowa is the reverse), but it's pretty strong. A little googling will reveal a number of additional citations.

    53. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In a remote state such as Alaska, where residents are paid to live there and pay neither income nor sales tax, his constituents have especially little reason to care for his wasting (and, likely, outright stealing) federal government's money, as long as they get a bit of it too.

      Alaska has some important resources. I think Red Dog Mine is the world's largest tin mine, but I'm not sure on that. And the obvious oil. And a gold find that may be the largest in the world (if they get around to developing it). In dollars per square mile, Alaska gets the least of all states. Since much of the federal infrastructure is size related, Alaska needs more, not less. The feds should be securing borders (what is it, half of all the coastline for the US is in Alaska?). They should be building the Interstates (Alaska is the only state without an Interstate, though we have managed to get some interstate funds). If you are conservative, you should think there should be less going to the people, for welfare or whatever, and more for the general defense and such. If you are conservative, that means you think Alaska should be getting more, not less.

      And the residents are not paid to live here, but residents that do live here get paid. It isn't a payment to live here, it is a payment to the people for the oil they own that was extracted from the ground in their name. The people of Alaska own all the oil being pumped out by Exxon and that bunch, and we take so little of it that it is the most profitable place in the world for them to operate. If you want to own hundreds of thousands of dollars of oil, move to Alaska.

    54. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by mi · · Score: 1

      Check the federal funds report

      That report covers (according to page 7):

      • Retirement and disability ($739 billion)
      • Other direct payments ($569 billion)
      • Grants ($494 billion)
      • Procurement contracts ($409 billion)
      • Salaries and wages ($243 billion)
      • Direct loans ($24 billion)
      • Guaranteed or insured loans ($160 billion)
      • Insurance ($1.1 trillion)

      Only the "grants" section (%13 of the total) can be considered "welfare". See page 13 for explanation of what "grants" means in the context, and table 4 (on page 30) for the grants-distribution. And now come the surprises. For example, one of the most Illiberal state of the Union — Vermont — received $2.19 per person, New York — $2.34. Although Alaska got twice as much at $4.59, another "red" state such as Missouri — only $1.47 per person.

      What was that about lies, damn lies, and then statistics?..

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    55. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      From the kuro5hin link you provided, the analysis is a bit off. Example:

      One important factor about what these numbers imply is that when a candidate wins the rural vote, he tends to win the less populous states which are still large in area. These states tend to be net importers of government goods and services. One important item in this flow is highway funding. Larger states simply have more area to cross with federally-supported roads. Hence; the rural winner is likely to be backed by "gain" states.

      Highway funding (in relation to federal tax remittance) is not inversely proportional to population density, which the writer assumes. Instead, it is roughly proportional to federal gas taxes remitted (TEA 21, 1998 requires 90.5% equity in gas taxes/highway funds, but actual equity is over 95%). This means that states with high highway utilization receive more in highway funding... and these states are, in general, the states with high population density.

      Excluding highway spending and gas taxes remitted to the federal goverment would give us a clearer picture, and without running the numbers, I'm guess we'd see an even greater discrepancy between red and blue states regarding remits/funding.

      I don't think anyone is seriously denying that the welfare queens of the union tend to be red states; it's just that the conservatives try really hard not to draw attention to that fact.

      Good point. Liberals don't mind drawing attention to it, since progressive taxation is part of their belief system. Conservatives don't want people knowing that they talkthe talk but don't walk the walk.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    56. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I agree completely. I live in Montana and the Crow reservation is always bitching about how bad things are on the rez.
      But they still have the same tribal council that has been publicly busted for embezzeling literally multiple millions of dollars of tribal money. Hell, some years back it was found that the whole council drove into a nearby town (off the res) and bought new cars for themselves (under the guise of being council vehicles). They did this every six months, and the 'old' cars sort of mysteriously 'vanished', and had a habit of turning up in other counties and states... usually tied to some type of meth-transporting scheme.
      The head law enforcement officer has been up on charges of DUI, corruption, intimidation, and assault, and even been convicted a couple times- but they still vote his sorry ass into office every election.

      And before anyone starts yelling racist, I'm also Native. It's just the res I grew up on is in good shape, and anytime someone is caught doing something shady we throw them out. Works quite well, actually.

    57. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Only the "grants" section (%13 of the total) can be considered "welfare".

      Define welfare. You seem to not be using the same terms others are using. Retirement may or may not be included in the definition of welfare, but disability definitely is. Procurement contracts? There is profit built in to those... and that profit should definitely be treated as welfare. Salaries and Wages? Depends on what they are for... but like the other payments, they stimulate the local enconomy and thus can be considered welfare. Loans? Sorry, part of that is welfare (the amount the state saved by not having to go to private financiers). Insurance? That's welfare plain and simple. The fed paid for something that benefited the state.

      For example, one of the most Illiberal state of the Union -- Vermont -- received $2.19 per person,

      Vermont is one of the most Illiberal states? You mean conservative states? Or did you mean liberal? And anyway, Red/Blue == Republican/Democrat != Conservative/Liberal. And if you look at how Vermont votes, you might be surprised. Vermont is not one of the most liberal states in the Union, they split tickets often. They have a Republican governor, in case you had not noticed. They also voted to not allow assisted suicide, which aligns with conservatives.

      Besides, you apparently conveniently ignore the fact that I never said "all", I said "most" and "corrolates strongly". Pointing out exceptions does not contravene my point.

      another "red" state such as Missouri -- only $1.47 per person.

      Per person? You are really confused. It's per dollar remitted. And 1.47 per dollar remitted means they got back almost 1.5 times what they paid in, so I fail to see how this data point does anything but support what I've written.

      It follows, then, that Republican states are benefited by (voluntarily! since they aren't forced to accept federal funds) the progressive tax scheme that they claim to decry.

      What was that about lies, damn lies, and then statistics?..

      The problem isn't the statistics. The problem is that you have yet to make a point other than "So what, it's not really hypocrisy", and now, "well it's not really welfare because I say it's not".

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    58. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      There's no reason why the federal government should be spending one red cent on bike paths'

      Oh yeah? What if the bike path is on the border of two states and is used only for commerce between the two states? What about THAT, huh?

      Seriously, though...

      They are called "representatives" for a reason, they represent the interests of their local community.

      Are you sure about that? They are supposed to represent their local community, but that is not the same thing as representing the interests of their local community. Sure, usually they will coincide, but Representatives should also serve all the people of the US, not just their constituents. There's got to be a balance there. I don't think a nation of people acting purely out of self-interest (which is what I infer from your position) is what was intended when this nation was created, Ayn Rand be damned.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    59. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by x2A · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do people in Idaho not pay those taxes also?

      Does any of those taxes that those in Idaho also pay get funnelled into the state you live in?

      Isn't spending money on real American citizens not actually a decent break from where a huge amount of the fed'gov's spending usually goes?

      Can you really really see no reason why your taxes should go towards improving peoples lives? Are people who live their lives closer to you worth more of your tax dollars? Are your tax dollars different to people who live in further away states such that they must be divided and never mixed?

      I agree that local governments should do what they can, just because it's going to be done more efficiently (smaller body = (reletively) less red tape etc) but fundamentally, where the amount being spent is equal, it hardly matters who does it, as long as you don't get one state funding development in another more than the reverse is also true, above the level of how much the one state needs help over the other.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    60. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see that same data with outliers excluded, say the top 5% and bottom 5% of income earners. I suspect that would change the picture somewhat.

      Feel free to exclude them and post your findings. It's amazing what you can prove by manipulating data. :P

      --
      Fnord.
    61. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by McNally · · Score: 1

      Didn't that "bridge to nowhere" actually go to the town's AIRPORT?

      Actually, it doesn't go anywhere, because contrary to widespread misconceptions on the project it was never actually built.

    62. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by sjames · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given that the population it serves is 7,000 whole people, that comes to around 50K/person spent just in case they might prefer a bridge to the existing ferry service.

      50K will buy a LOT of ferry rides!

    63. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Depends, I happen to live next to the second most visited national park, the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

      Driving through does not count as visiting. If that were the case, I've visited the Daniel Boone National Forest quite a few times...

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    64. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Skater · · Score: 1

      Yes but "bridge to nowhere" is a stupid moniker. It would've gone somewhere rather important to most cities.

    65. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. I think there's an invalid comparison between made between *states* when in reality the majority of even the most disadvantaged (in terms of this study) state is getting back more than they pay.

      The policy does not favor states that vote Republican, for the same reason. Even though California receives less than it pays, most of the money it does get is going to people who don't pay much taxes. So the average California benefits as much as the average Arizonian or whatever. That's my point.

      Example to explain what I'm saying:

      Say State A has 100 people. 1 of them is really rich and pays 99% of the income tax of the entire country. State B has 100 people and they are all as poor as the 99 non-rich ones in State A.

      Now let's say the government gets all that tax money and splits it evenly between the two states. In reality, I'm sure you'll agree that the 199/200 poor people are getting back way more than they pay, and all 200 people are getting the exact same monetary benefit (in this simple example, ignoring that the rich person probably gets e.g. more police protection simply because he owns more property).

      But this study would show that for every $100 in tax revenue from State A, the state only gets back about $50. So the residents in State A get all snobby and say "haha State B is a welfare state! It's a Republican welfare state, how hypocritical! haha!"

      I'm saying that is wrong. The *average* State A resident gets as much benefit as the average State B resident. That's why when we're making comparisons of the voter base (you claim that the red "states" are favored, so I'm assuming you mean a broad portion of the voter base is favored) you should exclude the top few percent who pay most of the taxes and receive the least benefits.

    66. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by afidel · · Score: 1

      I use the park almost every week during the warm months and quite a few times a month during the cold ones. I know I'm not alone as a good percentage of my coworkers talk about their plans to go out hiking/biking/running in the park most weekends.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    67. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but I wonder how the fact that the "average" taxpayer in the poorer states contributes less to the federal government than the "average" taxpayer in the wealthy states will affect the outcome. Even if we were to assume they receive the same benefit, there would still be inequity.

      One of the links I provided yesterday lists the per capita spending by state. If you compare this against the median income (a good measure of the 'average' income earner) you'll see that the inequity is still there.

      In September (or possible in August, but not likely due to time constraints) I'll be posting an analysis of the numbers in my journal. Spending vs. tax remits vs. median incomes vs. voting history. I'll probably be working through a few drafts, I'd love to have your input before I post the final journal...

      One other thing I'll note -- I think it's mistaken to say that the top earners in a state receive the least benefits. If anything, there is a concentrating effect of the benefits that allow the top earners to earn even more in absolute terms (though relative to their earnings, less than the benefit to poorer people). Their income potential is greatly increased by federal spending.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    68. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      you mistake correlatiom for causation. The high cost of living in CA, NY, DC, NJ, etc do not necessarily cause high salaries, though they are correlated to high salaries.

      It's tangential to my argument. When I'm speaking casually I don't necessarily go through a big effort to make the distinction, but I don't mistake the two.

      But, even if we accept your premise that there is no problem here because the differences are due to the progressive tax system... would it not then follow that federal "aid" to these areas should also be higher, since the cost of providing services in those areas is higher?

      The whole point of a progressive tax system is to put a disproportionately higher burden on the wealthy, so it doesn't necessarily follow.

      Let's look at some numbers. Going by http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html we see that Connecticut was one of the "best" states in 2005, paying $11522 and receiving $8795 per person. Arkansas was one of the "worst" states, paying $5030 and receiving $7364 per person.

      So you are right, there does seem to be some effort to make up for cost of living differences, since Connecticut receives more aid per person than Arkansas. Let's see if it's enough.

      According to this report, the average salary in Connecticut is $47k versus Arkansas with $26k.

      Tax revenue increase is 138% (11522 vs. 5030), but the average salary increase is only 80% (only, heh). The lovely progressive tax system at work.

      Anyway, if we use a cost-of-living calculator, we see that the cost of living difference is even less. This tool suggests that $26k/year in Arkansas is about $36k/year in Connecticut, for an average cost of living increase of only 38%. So tax revenue increase is definitely far outstripping COLA.

      Connecticut's aid is only 19% more per person than Arkansas, so that doesn't quite make up for cost of living. But it's clear (to me anyway) that the majority of Connecticut's "federal tax deficit" is legitimate since they get *almost* the same amount of aid (cost-adjusted) even though they have 80% higher salaries (58% higher cost-adjusted) on *average*.

      Now in reality, the top 10% of Connecticut tax payers probably pay more than the rest of the state combined. In any case, according to this Java tool, a single person who earns $47k (Connecticut's average, remember) pays $6700 in federal income tax (not $11k, Connecticut's average). So the average Connecticut person is still getting a net positive from federal tax spending. (Paying $6700 in tax and getting $8750 back.) This supports my original argument that comparisons between states are pretty much meaningless. The average person in each state benefits. The poor benefit even more.

      Also, if the numbers were easily available, I would dig into how that aid is broken down between welfare and wasteful projects versus things that actually improve the state (business development, infrastructure, etc). I would wager that Connecticut receives a higher proportion of "good" aid and that Arkansas receives more welfare aid that, while helping some people, isn't going to do much for Arkansas in the long run.

    69. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      In September (or possible in August, but not likely due to time constraints) I'll be posting an analysis of the numbers in my journal. Spending vs. tax remits vs. median incomes vs. voting history. I'll probably be working through a few drafts, I'd love to have your input before I post the final journal...

      Sounds interesting. I'd be glad to give my input.

      One other thing I'll note -- I think it's mistaken to say that the top earners in a state receive the least benefits. If anything, there is a concentrating effect of the benefits that allow the top earners to earn even more in absolute terms (though relative to their earnings, less than the benefit to poorer people). Their income potential is greatly increased by federal spending.

      In absolute monetary terms I agree. It's a bit more nebulous when you think about stuff like the police. The rich need more protection than the poor, but not necessarily police protection. I would guess that if police spending were cut to 0, the rich would all hire guards while the poor and middle class would be extremely vulnerable. So who is benefiting from police spending in non-monetary terms? My guess is the middle class most, followed by the poor, with the rich least.

      If a world police were created, and all countries could rely on them to enforce peace, who would benefit? Rich countries like America already have formidable armies, so we wouldn't gain anything in non-monetary terms. Countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan would gain a lot since more powerful countries wouldn't be allowed to invade them. However, in monetary terms we would gain the most since we currently spend the most on protection and could give that up. Which measure is more correct?

      But that's extremely hypothetical. I agree that in a stable society the rich benefit most, which is why I'm not exactly against a progressive income tax, despite my role in this debate.

      It does sting a bit that my marginal tax rate is over 40% (federal, state, payroll, plus other taxes). I got a raise of $200/month and my paycheck went up barely over $100... I was like wtf, there must be some mistake! Nope! I don't make that much money but I'm still subject to socialist-level taxation. On the other hand, it quenched my thirst for a higher salary since you have to divide your gain by 2 anyway.

    70. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by mi · · Score: 1

      Define welfare. You seem to not be using the same terms others are using.

      Everyone is using, what suits them.

      Pointing out exceptions does not contravene my point.

      It does not, alright, but I don't need to disprove you — only to show, that your (attempt at) proof is incomplete. The report you presented as evidence requires much more research and interpretation. But that's boring stuff (and you'll also need to look a few decades back too), and the conclusions are likely to be far less bombastic than you are hoping for.

      Per person? You are really confused. It's per dollar remitted.

      The table I was referring to showed the amounts of grants per State. I divided the total amounts for a few States by each State's population (obtained from U.S. Census). Looking at the dollars remitted by each State is a different view. It was more difficult to research and less relevant, so I chose not to do it

      It follows, then, that Republican states are benefited by (voluntarily! since they aren't forced to accept federal funds) the progressive tax scheme that they claim to decry.

      Whether the above is true or not, there is nothing wrong with decrying, what one benefits from. In fact, it can (should?) be viewed as honorable honesty: "Even though we benefit from it, we think, it is a terrible idea and should be abolished as soon as possible. That said, we will continue milking it for all it is worth, for as long as you, fools, keep forcing it upon all of us."

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    71. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well, police coverage is a hard one to calculate. Please consider the indirect benefit that the wealthy receive from police coverage... the business owners (and well-paid senior execs, etc) benefit from police coverage because it helps the company's bottom line. It would be a Herculean task to calculate how much it benefits them, but given the pay scales involved, it's probably orders of magnitude higher than the benefit to the average worker.

      Or consider the impact on property owners... good police coverage increases their property values immensely, but the increase in value in poor areas is likely much lower in absolute terms.

      I think what's missing in your view is that everything that benefits the poor also benefits the rich, since they are the employers of the poor, the owners of property rented by the poor, and the net providers of services to the poor. It's kind of like toxins in the food web... they conentrate as you move up the web. Benefits to the poor are also concentrated as you move up the economic ladder, they end up providing benefits to the wealthy. Think of it as "trickle-up" economics :).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    72. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Everyone is using, what suits them.

      No. You've copped out and said "It's whatever I want it to be". That's neither useful nor defendable, and it just solidifes my belief that your only reason for posting in this thread is because you don't want to believe what the numbers actually say.

      It does not, alright, but I don't need to disprove you -- only to show, that your (attempt at) proof is incomplete.

      I'm not trying to prove anything, which is why you're way off base. I provided data that shows a correlation between gross BOP and red|blue state. You, in return, decide to cherrypick some of the data so you can try to make a point. By the way, did you bother to run the data for all sets and see if it contravened my point?

      If you had any backgrond at all in statistical analysis (which obviously you don't by your remark about lies, damn lies, and statistics) or even in logical analysis, you'd know that finding an anecdotal datum that doesn't agree with the generalization means diddly-squat. It doesn't do anything except say "Hey, there's a data point that needs to be included in the analysis." And giuess what? It was included.

      I divided the total amounts for a few States by each State's population (obtained from U.S. Census). Looking at the dollars remitted by each State is a different view. It was more difficult to research and less relevant, so I chose not to do it

      There are plenty of analyses already available with per capita distribution of funds. Guess what? The correlation is there as well. You did it for a few states, which means absolutely nothing. Do it for all the states and see what happens. You were comparing apples to oranges (per capita to BOP ratio) and that is disingenuous at best, since you did not specify what you were doing, or where your new data came from. Go ahead and compare per-capita BOP data by state to red/blue status, I'd be happy to review your analysis. See, because you left out the remits in your calculations, your data is useless... the whole point of the data is to contrast remits with spending and if you leave out the remit data, your numbers are useless. And including only grants is also useless... I see you conveniently didn't bother to address the concerns I had when you originally did that.

      Whether the above is true or not, there is nothing wrong with decrying, what one benefits from. In fact, it can (should?) be viewed as honorable honesty: "Even though we benefit from it, we think, it is a terrible idea and should be abolished as soon as possible. That said, we will continue milking it for all it is worth, for as long as you, fools, keep forcing it upon all of us."

      That's horseshit rationalization. As said before, no one is forcing it on the people on the receiving end. They could choose to not accept the funds. Instead they choose to take the funds and perpetuate the system they decry.

      You believe there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy. Fine, you can believe that -- even if you refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the word hypocrisy. For sake of argument, to make the logic easier for you, I'll call it "not practicing what you preach". You beleive "not practicing what you preach" is A-OK. You have the right to believe that. I believe "not practicing what you preach" is immoral. Logically, then, I believe you are immoral.

      I'll leave it at that, since you have not shown the ability to do anything but make pseudo-analytic attempts to make the data appear different than it is.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    73. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      anytime someone is caught doing something shady we throw them out. Works quite well, actually.

      Incredible! This actually works? How could we go about implementing a system like that?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    74. Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      There are two separate issues here:
      1. The federal government should redistribute wealth between rich and poor states.
      2. The federal government should control what money is spent on in poor states.

      You are arguing in favour of point one. I actually agree with this, although no doubt this will bring out the Libertarian trolls. Point two, however, is a different matter. The federal government is not in a good position to determine whether a particular local project is worthwhile. Of the people on Capitol Hill, only a dozen are likely to have visited the area in question or know anything about it, but they are all expected to vote for or against a particular project. In contrast, the local government is likely to be full of people who know the area (relatively) well and have access to all of the information required to make informed decisions.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Series of Tubes by pyster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    while this guy is an asshat, Series of Tubes as an analogy works just fine. This is one of those things other clueless asshats giggle at.

    1. Re:Series of Tubes by smaddox · · Score: 1, Funny

      You are absolutely right.

      He also was correct when he said people were clogging the tubes and keeping him from receiving the internets being sent to him.

    2. Re:Series of Tubes by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, no, clueless asshats don't laugh at it, people who know about the subject laugh at it. The analogy is simple to the point of being useless and is only useful for those who don't have any clue at all about how the internet works, which is a quickly shrinking minority. That someone in such a position is a member of that minority is embarrassing.

    3. Re:Series of Tubes by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I agree that the Series of Tubes analogy in itself isn't bad...what makes the analogy so funny is that it was the frustrated climax to a long technically incompetent rant that he made in an effort to make a point for a stupid law. You really have to see the whole thing, "series of tubes vs. dump truck" is just the cherry on the cake.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Series of Tubes by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Honestly, I think anyone who knows anything knows you're right. I mean, the word "pipe" is part of network jargon for a reason, and the only difference between a tube and a pipe is that a tube is better engineered and you can use precision fittings and bend it, instead of having to threading the ends of each piece to join together with joints. It's like calling the colour of a banana "saffron" instead of "yellow".

      On the other hand, it's fun and easy to make fun of Republicans, especially old ones who talk about technology.

      My question is, how many Republicans can get charged with major crimes before they have to stop pretending morality is part of their platform?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    5. Re:Series of Tubes by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

      The same people harping on "The Series of Tubes" are the ones posting 80 page essays on why Gore didn't claim to invent the Internet.

      Just let it rest. Partisan hacks will be partisan hacks.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    6. Re:Series of Tubes by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      As a very basic analogy, it might make some sense in describing generic networking concepts. As an analogy of a packet switching network, it's pretty damned worthless.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Series of Tubes by Loko+Draucarn · · Score: 1

      The tubes weren't clogged, he just didn't have the patience to wait for the entire Internet sent by his staff to transfer.

      An Internet is huge, of course it's going to take a few days.

      Maybe we engineers should develop an Internet Transfer Protocol to simplify and speed the distribution of internets (and allow clients to better estimate transfer times.)

    8. Re:Series of Tubes by Random+Destruction · · Score: 5, Informative
      While the series of tubes analogy works, its the speech that surrounds that quote that is hilarious. for example:

      I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

      --
      :x
    9. Re:Series of Tubes by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      How about a car analogy? The internet is a series of interconnected highways. The packets are the cars, they all know their destination. Occasionally packet collisions occur, etc.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    10. Re:Series of Tubes by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      He's an 80+ year old Senator. I can guarantee his staff don't "send" him the internets. They print him the internets.

    11. Re:Series of Tubes by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I don't think the number of people who understand how the internet works is in the majority. Most people ascribe it to magic. I'm willing to bet most people don't know exactly how pipes work either, for that matter.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    12. Re:Series of Tubes by bunratty · · Score: 1

      There's a display of how the Internet works at our local children's museum. It actually is a series of tubes that balls travel through. They even allow you to send black and white balls that represent zeros and ones, and a chart of some common ASCII characters so you can actually send messages. The only silly thing about the model is that each individual bit (ball) can take a different path. Other than that, it demonstrates a packet switched network rather effectively.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    13. Re:Series of Tubes by Silicon+Jedi · · Score: 1

      Too bad we can't get the federal gov't to do something like they did with the Interstate Highway System.

    14. Re:Series of Tubes by gnick · · Score: 1

      Stevens did his best to give us a car analogy: "The Internet is not a big truck."

      OK, it wasn't enough to satisfy everyone, but at least he tried.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    15. Re:Series of Tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question is, how many Republicans can get charged with major crimes before they have to stop pretending morality is part of their platform?

      Well, that's easy. All of them!

      But seriously, after Dick Nixon and George W., who's going to raise the bar? Or even come near it? As an Alaskan, all I can say is that this day is none the less sweet for being so long overdue.

      And as to the Series of Tubes...you should watch the video, it speaks for itself.

    16. Re:Series of Tubes by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Informative

      If he simply said "the Internet is like a series of tubes and if too much stuff is going through it, it will slow down", then he might have been right, generally speaking.

      However, his speaking style was garbled and it frequently looked like he was trying to make a point, didn't know what it was, and was confused about technical details that shouldn't confuse someone basically in charge of setting Internet policies for the USA. Here are a few gems (thanks to the previous poster who posted this text):

      "There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.

      But this service isn't going to go through the internet and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

      Ok, talking about Netflix here. So far, so good. You order movies online and they arrive at your door.

      Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

      Now he, all of a sudden, leaps from movies delivered to your door to movies streamed online. He seems to think that: 1) you would order ten movies at once, 2) you would stream those ten movies at the same time, and 3) you would be surprised when your connection speeds dropped into the basement.

      I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

      Obvious misuse of terminology. I might be nitpicking if the person in question was an 80 year old grandmother who just got online, but this guy was in charge of setting Internet policies in the US. Can't he call it an "e-mail" and not an "Internet." (Unless his staff really was sending him an interconnected network of computers. I'd like to see the shipping charges on that!)

      Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

      Or because the mail server was slow. These things happen and they're almost never due to commercial internet traffic slowing things down.

      They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

      It's a series of tubes.

      And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

      He seems to be of the mind that sites like YouTube just dump their content onto the Internet and it somehow clogs up the works for everyone. The reality is that YouTube, and sites like it, take up 0 content all by themselves. When you request a video from YouTube, the server responds by sending you the video and just that video, not YouTube's entire collection. If a lot of people on your network are viewing a large number of YouTube videos, then, yes, YouTube traffic will account for a fair amount of the total traffic going over the network. However, this traffic is initiated by the user, not the site.

      Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?

      Do you know why?

      Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.

      Or, more likely, because the DOD isn't dumb and doesn't want to deliver sensitive and classified information over a public network.

      Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develo

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    17. Re:Series of Tubes by Buran · · Score: 1

      My father is 75 years old. He can still transcribe FORTRAN from punch cards to a compiler (he's a scientist, so he's used FORTRAN for years). He recently asked me about installing Fedora Linux on his iMac via Parallels Desktop.

      Age is not an automatic criteria for cluelessness.

    18. Re:Series of Tubes by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Does it matter what he tried to do? The fact is that you can't make a meaningful analogy if you don't even understand what it is you're trying to make an analogy of. He clearly didn't understand how the Internet works, and seemed to have only a rather vague comprehension of what it is. I'm not blaming him for that ignorance, but rather for the sheer arrogance of thinking he could explain it. He made a fool of himself.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:Series of Tubes by j01123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

      Everybody is so amused by the "series of tubes" line that they overlook this far more important statement that actually demonstrates his ignorance. He apparently believed that bandwith problems (clogged tubes) cause an email to be delayed for days, when that obviously can't be the case. This doesn't have the hilarious memorability of Stevens' other statements, but it does a much better job of showing his substantive misunderstanding of issues relating to net neutrality.

    20. Re:Series of Tubes by MarkGriz · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's an 80+ year old Senator

      Age is not an automatic criteria for cluelessness

      You ignored the part about him being a Senator

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    21. Re:Series of Tubes by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The 'Tubes' he was thinking of were radio tubes.

      People who hide behind 'morality' will always hide behind 'morality', even after they have been proven to be immoral.

      The question is: How many die hard republicans finally realize there leadership is a now sham?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:Series of Tubes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The analogy IS bad, because the internet IS actually much more like a lot of dump trucks on a highway (i.e. packets being sent through the internet). And the fact that it IS actually more like trucks makes the whole net neutrality problem possible.

      If it was a series of tubes and you couldn't actually see who puts in what, the whole discussion of net neutrality would be moot. The fact that the truck analogy works better, and that the highway police of the TelCos could actually sell something like road tax discs to let some trucks use the fast lane, this is what makes the whole friggin' analogy so bad.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:Series of Tubes by gnick · · Score: 1

      Actually I think that, on the point I referenced, he was spot on. I won't go so far as to defend the "series of tubes" analogy, but his car analogy was absolutely accurate.

      Unless of course, you're implying that the Internet is a big truck.

      (In case is didn't/isn't coming across, I was/am joking.)

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    24. Re:Series of Tubes by Buran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please explain how job description also assures ignorance. There are ignorant people and clueful people in any job. What proof do you have that a given career equates to being able to automatically assume someone's cluefulness level about a give subject? If I told you what I do for a living, that would tell you absolutely nothing else about me, so how could you draw a conclusion that had any basis in reality?

    25. Re:Series of Tubes by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      You also call a computer a "box", but I doubt anyone would think a shoebox can serve the same purpose, or would compare it with one when it comes to getting math problems solved.

      Jargon doesn't have to be accurate. It rarely is. How often do you have to search for your data that you put on a "heap" (provided you can code, that is)? How often do you kick your system while you "boot" it? Ever tried to bend or even fold a 3.5" "floppy disc"? Have you ever made out with a port because it's got a female connector? Do you have to keep your cat away from your "mouse"? Ever unlocked your door with something you got from a "keyboard"?

      The audience is encouraged to come up with worse jargon abuse.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Series of Tubes by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1
      In the interest of fairness, let me fix that for you:

      My question is, how many politicians can get charged with major crimes before they have to stop pretending morality is part of their platform?

    27. Re:Series of Tubes by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, sure, Series of Tubes works fine. What I'm wondering is, at the level at which you can say the internet is a series of tubes, how can you say that it isn't a truck? I think trucks works just as well if not better than tubes since the internet is really comprised of discreet packets not a continuous flow.

      The internet is a like a truck that you dump things on, but if what you're sending is too big to fit on a single truck you have to split it up into separate trucks that are each sent individually and if the roads are congested your trucks will show up late. The trucks may choose different routes to the destination and show up out of order, and some trucks may get in a collision and thus not get delivered at all so you need a way to account for each truck and re-ship the pieces that went missing. Some roads don't allow large trucks so then the truck's load needs to be split up onto two smaller ones. And so on and so on.

      Really, the reason he gets made fun of is that if you read everything he said, he obviously has no idea what he's talking about. Series of tubes is a decent analogy by accident.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    28. Re:Series of Tubes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that some people think politicians are the know-it-alls of today. For some reason I can't imagine politicians are seen as someone who knows something about whatever he talks about. Now, they usually appear more coherent and confident than Stevens on the infamour "tubes" speech, but people will believe that crap they spew!

      Of course, we don't. Hey, we know the internet, right? We know what to think of that speech? But how much do we know about medical care, about retirement and pension funds, about farmer's concerns, about whatever crap you don't know jack about but hear a speech from a politician?

      You can't debunk them immediately, because you know even less about the topic. He may spew junk and garbage, and every professional in the field will immediately dismiss it as drivel, but you can't.

      My approach was to listen to them speak and wait for the moment they start to use what they just said as grounds for something they want done. Then I try to find out for myself what experts think about the subject. And vote accordingly.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    29. Re:Series of Tubes by SashaMan · · Score: 1

      Check the wikipedia article on "series of tubes". Apparently, according to you, Princeton CS professor Edward Felten doesn't have any clue how the internet works because he felt that "series of tubes" was an entirely valid non-technical analogy.

      As someone else pointed out, Stevens' other statements in his "series of tubes" speech, that he received "an Internet" that was delayed by the clogged tubes, was what made him look like an idiot.

    30. Re:Series of Tubes by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I agree about the rest of his ravings. The only thing I'm against is the characterization of the metaphor of the internet as "a series of tubes" as hilariously inaccurate.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    31. Re:Series of Tubes by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      I find the series of tubes analogy as good as a typical slashdot car analogy.

    32. Re:Series of Tubes by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      What proof do you have that a given career equates to being able to automatically assume someone's cluefulness level about a give subject?

      Proof? You can't handle the proof.

    33. Re:Series of Tubes by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      I make fun of both of them. Oh shit, what now!?

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    34. Re:Series of Tubes by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 1

      If the "heap" on my desk counts as a data pile, daily. If not, then I use the "heap manager" that someone else wrote to keep track of the items placed into the "heap memory". I kick my system every day to boot it, mainly because I put a kickswitch on it (from a guitar pedal) just to enjoy the feeling of kicking it. And my cats love to play with my mice, espceially the red laser optical ones.

      It would be more accurate to say that jargon does not have to be precise. Most, if not all, jargon originates as a descriptive term for the objects and methods of the field it is used in. It acts as a shorthand that those skilled in the field can use to communicate more rapidly.

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
    35. Re:Series of Tubes by KGIII · · Score: 1

      This makes two days in a row where we needed BadAnalogyGuy's input.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    36. Re:Series of Tubes by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      How often do you have to search for your data that you put on a "heap" (provided you can code, that is)?

      I think you would be interested to see what my desk looks like. :)

      --
      Fnord.
    37. Re:Series of Tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The humorous part was that he referred to an email as "an internet". But I'm not sure why that should make me happy he's in trouble with the law... sometimes slashdot is a confusing place.

    38. Re:Series of Tubes by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      Have you ever made out with a port because it's got a female connector?

      Yes, but then I'm am amateur teledildonics researcher.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    39. Re:Series of Tubes by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Ever tried to bend or even fold a 3.5" "floppy disc"?

      I've not only tried, I've done it. The media is floppy, ya know...just don't mistake the cover for the media.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    40. Re:Series of Tubes by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yup. In a speech where he called an email and internet, and blamed bittorrent for an email taking several days to reach him, people pick up on the one bit that actually makes some sort of sense.

    41. Re:Series of Tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the obvious one. If you've got a server connected to the internet through a major backbone it's "sitting on a fat pipe".

      How about a "monitor"? I'm not monitoring anything, I'm looking at a display. It was called a monitor back when it was a screen connected to a machine that had a single function, and by looking at the screen you were monitoring the machine and whatever function it was performing.

      "Notebook computer" - is it a pad of paper, or a computer? Is it a computer that can only take notes?

    42. Re:Series of Tubes by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      Actually it is quite possible. There's something called a "queue" (hand quotes), and when your processing "e-mail" (more hand quotes) to block out "spam" (whatever), things get rather backlogged.

    43. Re:Series of Tubes by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I'm young, but even I can remember the days when email could be delayed for a day or two. Small mail servers sometimes get overloaded and only have enough bandwidth or CPU time to send an email a few days late (better than never?).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    44. Re:Series of Tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Please explain how job description also assures ignorance

      The job description requires that you be elected by the general public. I'd say that about clinches it.

    45. Re:Series of Tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really silly; inverse time division multiplexors often striped bits across very different TDM channels (DS0s, later DS1s/E1s, later still DS3s/E3s), and while iTDM framing varied from application to application, bitwise parallelization of octets was done and despite the framing overhead needed to synchronize up the striped octets across underlying paths with differing delay characteristics -- sometimes this difference could be as much as a quarter to a half second! -- it added a great deal of resilience against bursts of bit errors.

      The differences in timing was often down to using different carriers (or at least different submarine systems) because of availability, cost, or for resiliency if TDM protection was unavailable (or for the additional bandwidth if you could use the protection circuit for live data). Different physical paths, different delays from transmitting to receiving iMUX. And if one of the terrestrial paths had satellite protection, you could see the delays shoot up on those, and might want to put up with delaying the whole set of inverse-multiplexed circuits to maintain a single logical bit pipe. Sometimes bandwidth is more important than delay.

      Although load sharing on pseudoparallel Internet circuits is usually at a much coarser level (per-destination, per-n-tuple-hash (src,dst,proto,port 4-tuple for example, "per flow"), and per-packet load balancing is popular), with modern large scale routers (CRS-1, for example) starting to use ultra-long-haul optics on their own integrated DWDM equipment (that need not be ITU Grid), some sort of fixed-size sub-packet load distribution becomes attractive to make queue scheduling easier. (This would almost certainly be a lot like ATM ought to have been like when it was under discussion as a solution to interleaving asynchronous data traffic using standard RISC-like microprocessors that could hold the entire cell in register memory (for manipulation) and a single cache line (for speed)).

      Depending on the time properties of the different colours (the detectable wavefront of different channels will propagate through fibre at different speeds for a variety of physical reasons, and with very short pulses (short bits == high bit rate) the timing difference will literally change over the course of a day as the fibre temperature and position changes due to solar heating and lunar tides (lamination dispersion is a real effect at high bit rates)).

      Also, of course, individual lasers or receivers may burn out, and fibre damage might affect some but not all colours, so being able to cope with that kind of physical damage without having to immediately adjust the routing system is a useful way to avoid adding yet more scaling pressure to the IP routing system (which is very fragile, and gets more fragile with greater dynamism).

      So, while bits taking radically different paths certainly doesn't describe the majority of Internet traffic today, it has actually happened in the past, it is maybe happening now (ancient gear in surprising places...), and it will probably happen in the future, at least during path breakages.

      This is all at two protocol layers or more under the IP layer, however. Then again, the IP layer itself (rather than higher layers) is only infrequently used to carry raw ASCII characters. :-)

    46. Re:Series of Tubes by borizz · · Score: 1

      The word series bothers me. It's more like a spiders web, with each message taking the shortest path from a to b. In this analogy there is no congestion between a and b if points c and d on the other side of the network communicate. Stevens implied that my internet traffic generated in Holland, destined to a certain website in Sweden (for example) clogs up the pipes that his US to US e-mail also use. Which is of course false. And that is why the series of tubes meme exists. Tubes is fine, series is not.

    47. Re:Series of Tubes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Mine's more like a stack. The newest is on top and usually gets done first, the oldest is at the bottom and is usually flushed out eventually because nobody really needs it to be processed anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    48. Re:Series of Tubes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you were the guy that called me when I was still in tech support, asking how the heck he should put his disk in because it's all wobbly after he took it out of its box...

      Seriously. The "floppy disc" is a leftover from when discs actually were quite floppy (ever had one of those 8" giants in your hands? They really bend under their own weight). I somehow doubt anyone would have called the 3.5"ers "floppy discs" if it wasn't already the generally accepted term for those storage media.

      You get the same "bogus" names a lot when things move on from their original namesakes. Take SCSI. "Small computer systems interface". Small? Until the advent of SATA, SCSI was the de facto only choice you had for server systems. That's small? It comes from a time when "small" computers had no controllers for storage, so the storage had to come in some way that brought its controller along.

      Take RAID. "Redundant array of inexpensive discs" (yes, independent, c'mon, humor me for the sake of the argument, ok?) Same deal, RAIDS are a lot, mostly cool, but rarely inexpensive. Again, this is from a time when the price for storage grew astronomically with every little bit you wanted to store, so it was actually a LOT cheaper to link a few smaller discs instead of buying a single big one.

      The same applies for a mouse. Partly, it got its name from its "cable tail". Would someone call our cordless rodents mice?

      I leave it up to you to find out where "battery" comes from.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    49. Re:Series of Tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit!

      Think of this for a second. What if you loaded up trucks and then they drove someplace through a one of a series of tubes?

      If that was the case then the Internet would be trucks AND tubes at the same time.

      Bricks have been shat.

    50. Re:Series of Tubes by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      If I told you what I do for a living, that would tell you absolutely nothing else about me

      If he can read the shite you post, would he need anything else?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    51. Re:Series of Tubes by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Well, the fact of the matter is that the disks are floppy. It would be just as disingenuous to say that CD's aren't round just because you happen to keep all yours in cartridges for your cartridge-loaded CD-ROM drive. And I've seen the 11" hard disks. They bend, too, but they don't work afterward - the aluminum doesn't straighten out terribly well. Just like VHS, and tape cartridges, are called tapes, even though they aren't on open-ended spools like in the good old days.

      As for the other names, some are just silly, like mouse, and some had far more relevance when they were first coined than they do today, like RAID. None of which makes floppy disks any less flexible.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    52. Re:Series of Tubes by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The Internet is not a toilet that you can just dump into. It is a series of bricks that are shat.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    53. Re:Series of Tubes by Buran · · Score: 1

      You mean, after he reads the radioactive waste YOU post? If I post total shit, then what's the rest of Slashdot? I've gotten compliments on what I've written before, and you think it's shit? Ha, yeah right. Disagreement does not mean effluent.

  6. And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Darundal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...into people claiming that everything is the fault of one party or the other and that all members of one of the two parties are corrupt.

    1. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, I don't see this devolving into partisan bickering because everyone hates congress and the senate and everyone knows that people on both sides of the aisle are corrupt. I'm a republican and I freakin' hate this guy. Everyone I know hates corruption in the government, and this guy was one of the most corrupt out there.

    2. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's two parties?? When did that happen?

      --
      What?
    3. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone hates congress...until election time when 95% of them get reelected.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That pattern can be explained in a single word: gerrymandering.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What do you mean "was"? He's still the ranking Republican and his vote still counts, even while he's indicted. Which is the way it should work, but don't speak about him like he's gone yet, he's still.. err.. "working".

    6. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Term limits would solve that problem both by definition and by addressing a core problem - length of time served equals power in both houses. Then there's the problem that races tend to involve two absolutely shitty choices. Even with some pretty blatant gerrymandering, Utah republicans can't oust democrat Jim Matheson from congress because they keep nominating idiots to run against him.

      The consequence of this system is that corruption never gets rooted out and a bunch of old men are deciding the future of a country that's changing very rapidly. I'll vote against incumbents when they give me a good alternative, and that doesn't happen too often.

    7. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have to say I don't hate this guy. I mean let's face it he took bribes and did some other scummy things. Hate seems over the top for this guy.
      Yep I don't care if he is Republican, Democrat, or Ron Paul's love child. If he guilty get him out.
      As far as partisan bickering... I never understood the emotional investment people make in politicians.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Couldn't have said it better.

    9. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      If you replace one party member with another, you're not getting term limits. You only get more people who toe the party line. Example: Look at the presidency. Getting worse with every election. And it's happening again, before your very eyes. And who's nominating those "idiots? Why, we are. The guy in the mirror is doing the nominating. Gerrymandering is a convenient cop out for people who simply won't accept the blame for their own actions. Despite your term limits, Jeb has a very good chance of winning the presidency. If you want a better example, look at Mexico's presidency. They have "no reelection" One term is all you get.

      --
      What?
    10. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That pattern can be explained in a single word: gerrymandering.

      Actually there is a bit more to it than that. Your own Congressman is probably pretty good at delivering "economic development" to his district. The other 434 assholes are just wasting our tax dollars on "pork".

      Ever wonder why Congress as a whole gets shitty approval ratings yet people usually have good things to say about their own Rep?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The emotional investment is ridiculously easy to explain.

      There are about 5,000 american soldiers dead in Iraq, a war of aggression against a nation that hadn't attacked us based on false information. That's 5,000 families who are without a brother, a sister, a father, a mother, an aunt, an uncle, a neice, a nephew. A young man or woman dying needlessly is a very tragic and emotional event.

      It's not hard to get worked up over stuff like that. It's very easy, in fact, to get all self-righteous and call Republicans murderers who are sending our soliders to needless, useless, valueless deaths in the asshole of the world.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    12. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      It's not an emotional investment in politicians, per se. It's more like the emotional investment people have made in believing they know how everyone else should live, which naturally leads to passionately defending those who think the same way and have power.

      Witness Apple zealots, Linux zealots, socialism zealots... I could go on all night, but I'm sick of typing already.

    13. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Gerrymandering won't save any politician if the people in his district genuinely dislike him.

      The thing about corruption is: everyone hates every corrupt politician *except* the guy who brings more jobs to the local community. Our hate for corruption somehow has a blind spot when we benefit, and no one outside of Alaska gets to vote on Stevens one way or the other.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The authorization for the use of military force was quite bipartizan, and nearly unanimous. The Dem candidate in 04 ran on the platform that he would not rush out of Iraq.

      I can see you have lots of emtional investment in your team, but the price of Iraq would seem to be the same whoever wins the big game, so your rant is a bit confusing.

      Lets face it, the emotional investment comes first, and the rest is rationalization.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think both parties are shit. You've got the center-left democrats and the far left republicans(They can pretend they're right-wing, but that's all marketing).

      There's only one man in politics I respect, and he won't be anything more than a congressman from Texas because he's got too much integrity to accept the fictions the two main parties require you to accept to even be part of the debate.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    16. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Actually, I disagree. The presidency is devolving because it's one person who has to appeal to a majority of the country. Appealing to the majority of a state is very different, and the voters in state elections will feel like they have more power over the outcome than they do over a national election (which is true). This is one of the rationales behind limited federal power, that people will have more oversight of state and local elections because it's a smaller group, something that people can relate to more. It also puts the spotlight back onto local and state elections, because right now the federal elections are many times more important than the local ones.

      Sorry, got lost in my rant there. Where the president has to appeal to the whole country, a senator or congressman has to appeal to a state and they have to campaign exclusively in that one area. It's a lot easier to spot a party hack when you see all the commercials that they run and you can go to every speech that they give.

      That's just my 2 cents.

    17. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by kribor · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you would have to amend the Constitution in order to institute term limits in the Senate (where Tubes served). There is no way that will ever happen

      --
      "You can never win or lose if you don't run the race"
    18. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As always, the majority demands less corruption in government -- or alternatively, more of
      a chance to participate in it.

      Is there any more realistic way to sum up government than "screw everyone else, I want my piece of the pie"?

      Personally, I'm always delighted to see this business of corruption take down one of its own. Keep fighting among yourselves, not ever stopping to realize that the only reason you fight is because the pie exists.

    19. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidently your hate is not shared by the republicans of Alaska. They kept re-electing him. That's the story around the country: congress as a whole gets low marks, but every elected official well-liked locally to be elected. I guess the problem is not in the elected, but the electorate.

    20. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by uberjoe · · Score: 1

      I thought you were going to say "tubes."

      --

      The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    21. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Except that the majority of democrats all voted to go as well. So no it totally doesn't make any sense. Not only that but the current Democratic candidate is all for putting more solders on the ground in Afghanistan and I will bet that his rhetoric about pulling out of Iraq will slack off over time. Just my guess.
      So nope it really doesn't make any sense at all.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    22. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The emotional investment is ridiculously easy to explain.

      But would you make the emotional investment if he were a Democrat?

    23. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      They're just taking advantage of the fact that they were pantsed at the time. The Republicans controlled the house, the senate, the executive, and the judiciary at the time, so it's very easy for democrats to raise their hand and go "Hey, this isn't our fault", and it's very easy from there for people to blame the republicans, and from there it's very easy to get emotional about it.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    24. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Quit being so damned partisan. It'd be just as easy to make an emotional attachment if it was a republican as a democrat. Dead people are dead people. I don't care if it's the far left party(the republicans) or the center-left party(the democrats) doing it.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    25. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Funny I guess that means that nobody in power thinks the way I do.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    26. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to get worked up over stuff like that.

      Maybe, but getting personally attached to events that didn't personally affect you is retarded. Not that you can't disapprove, just don't be stupid enough to get emotionally involved in things that aren't really affecting you.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    27. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      If emotions reacted to logic, they wouldn't be emotions, they'd be logic.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    28. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      So learn to react with logic instead of emotion. Everyone does it to some extent or other, so it isn't like it's impossible.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    29. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by sheldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do people keep babbling on about term limits? All that'd accomplish is to put even more power in the hands of the unelected staffers.

      How about we reduce their power by going back to one representative for every 50,000 people instead of one for every 600,000 like we have now?

      Won't help much with the Senate, but the Senate was setup by design to protect the smaller populated states.

    30. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      So they are totally delusional? You see that is just as bad if not worse. To lie and say you fully support when you really don't believe in it just to get re-elected seems far more evil to me.
      Add in the fact that Obama says he has no intention of pulling out of Afghanistan just makes it all seem so silly to me.
      http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/20/obama.afghanistan/index.html
      Obama isn't going to get the US out of combat and even his stance on Iraq seems to be changing.
      Hey I have no problem with a politician changing his mind when he has new data but so many people seem to be totally clueless about what the people they support are really saying.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    31. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Just because you're an INTJ or INTP personality type doesn't mean everyone has to be.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    32. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, actually, yeah, everyone should utilize their reason rather than their emotions. Have you ever noticed just how damn many bad decisions get made when people get emotional, and stop thinking?

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    33. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Obama is simply catering to the only tactic capable of winning an election in our current climate of utter ignorance: You appeal to the voter's baser emotions. At that point, it doesn't matter WHAT you say as long as you say it in such a way that gives you warm fuzzy feelings. Democrats are gambling that anti-war gives more people warm fuzzy feelings than pro-war. Republicans are taking the opposite gamble.

      The only guy to EVER talk real policy is Ron Paul, and he got raped for his trouble.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    34. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      You say that becuase you're an INTJ personality type. In fact, studies show that people who use their first gut feeling do just as well as people who spend a long time pondering and considering facts.

      Logic isn't as iron-clad as you think. For example, it can't tell you why you should be alive. There's no logical reason to life or to die.

      Humans continue to exist because they're programmed to live, but not because there's any good reason to. Unless you believe in the irrational concept of a God, or an irrational concept of a religion, or the irrational concept of furthering humanity, or any one of a number of irrational concepts with no logical basis, there's no reason to exist in this valueless, meaningless world of ours.

      Nihilism is the only logical basis for philosophy. There is no logical basis for any morality or ethics. Everything beyond that is easing the truth of nihilism with some human emotion. Either we do it becuase it feels good, or because we expect it'll help us feel good in the future, or because we're programmed to do it.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    35. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by BryanL · · Score: 1

      You pretty much spell out why I am against Term Limits. A good, honest politician keeps getting re-elected because the opposition stinks. If I had to vote between to stinkers knowing a fairly good representative can't serve due to term limits I would be pretty upset. And yes, I have voted for Jim Matheson in the past and like having him in congress. Without him Utah would probably be represented by more people like Chris Cannon. *shudder*

    36. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by bunratty · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why democracy and freedom don't always work well in practice. The tragedy of the commons says that what's good for each individual is often not good for the group as a whole.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    37. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Larryish · · Score: 0

      Ever wonder why Congress as a whole gets shitty approval ratings yet people usually have good things to say about their own Rep?

      Does it have anything to do with American Idol or NASCAR? If it doesn't, then I am totally clueless.

    38. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That's the problem.

      The people in my district are conscientious people who make intelligent choices as to who should have the very important job of representing their views in Washington DC.

      Everyone else in the country is a moron who votes for the guy with the best hair.

    39. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Nah, he wasn't at all one of the 'most corrupt out there'. Ted actually has a reputation for being very careful about violating ethics rules. My interpretation is that, after so many years in the Senate, he got lax and went over the line. (He's been my senator for my entire lifetime and this is the first time he's gotten into hot water.)

      However, it is totally clear that he is woefully ignorant about the internet.

    40. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Term limits also preclude good, capable, caring, sincere politicians from keeping a job that the voters want them to keep.

    41. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I know what the word means by context and other definitions, I think the word history is pretty interesting:

      Word History: "An official statement of the returns of voters for senators give[s] twenty nine friends of peace, and eleven gerrymanders." So reported the May 12, 1813, edition of the Massachusetts Spy. A gerrymander sounds like a strange political beast, which it is, considered from a historical perspective. This beast was named by combining the word salamander, "a small lizardlike amphibian," with the last name of Elbridge Gerry, a former governor of Massachusettsâ"a state noted for its varied, often colorful political fauna. Gerry (whose name, incidentally, was pronounced with a hard g, though gerrymander is now commonly pronounced with a soft g) was immortalized in this word because an election district created by members of his party in 1812 looked like a salamander. According to one version of gerrymander's coining, the shape of the district attracted the eye of the painter Gilbert Stuart, who noticed it on a map in a newspaper editor's office. Stuart decorated the outline of the district with a head, wings, and claws and then said to the editor, "That will do for a salamander!" "Gerrymander!" came the reply. The word is first recorded in April 1812 in reference to the creature or its caricature, but it soon came to mean not only "the action of shaping a district to gain political advantage" but also "any representative elected from such a district by that method." Within the same year gerrymander was also recorded as a verb.

    42. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Term limits are not the problem. Safe seats with non-competitive races are the problem.

      Term limits make things worse, not better. When elected officials play musical chairs, real power accumulates with people who stay in place through multiple administrations: lobbyists and long time bureaucrats. The lobbyists have a well defined agenda and they are waiting with "expert advice" when an inexperienced legislator shows up. It is similar for bureaucrats: the ones nearest the top who stay longer then appointed officials have the real control.

      If you want to have something other then "shitty choices" then what you really need are competitive districts and serious campaign finance reform. Otherwise, term limits or not, nothing will change.

    43. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      The way he's going to escape from prison isn't a big truck. It's going to be a series of tubes.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    44. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      How about we reduce their power by going back to one representative for every 50,000 people instead of one for every 600,000 like we have now?

      I'm not in favor of this (nor do I think yours is a bad idea), but the logical end to your suggestion is this: Why not just do away with the concept of 'representation' and just let every individual vote on every law?

      We only have representatives because 200 years ago it wasn't feasible to get everyone who's eligible together for voting and discussion. Today it is (sorta).

      So let's just have a democracy and do away with the republic.

    45. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      There are about 5,000 american soldiers dead in Iraq...

      And there are a crapload of Democrats in Washington not lifting a finger to stop any of it, so you've proved GP's point.

    46. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Bush is certainly making it easy for Democrats to have an excuse. He's brandished his veto power for the second time in his entire presidency(He used it once in the six years prior), making it nearly impossible for dems to do what they want, so they've got to compromise.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    47. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      If you honestly believe in something, you'll stick to your guns and NOT compromise.

      In this case, Congress could have ended the war by cutting off funding, effectively overriding the veto. They chose instead to sit down and shut up.

    48. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by dcam · · Score: 1

      I don't care if it's the far left party(the republicans) or the center-left party(the democrats) doing it.

      I find this odd. From a global perspective democrats are right and republicans are far right. What is your personal political scale?

      --
      meh
    49. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why democracy and freedom don't always work well in practice

      I agree. The problem with every other system is that for every George Washington or Marcus Aurelius you wind up with someone like Joseph Stalin or Caligula.

      I'll take the stupidity of the whole over the tyranny of one any day of the week.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    50. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by bunratty · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing for dictatorship. I'm just saying that in many cases, regulation is called for. Sometimes committees come up with arbitrary rules that everyone needs to follow for the good of the whole. In the US, we're forced to drive on the right side of the road to avoid traffic collisions. It may be wise for the US to implement a regulation that politicians have a spending limit to avoid building up huge deficits. Maybe taxes should be based directly on spending to avoid any deficits in the first place. Any elected official who wanted to not raise taxes would have to not raise spending.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    51. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      The difference between left wing and right wing to me is determined by adherence to tradition. Traditionalists and people who don't really want to change a lot of things are right wing, radicalists and people who want to change lots of things are left wing. The Republicans have coined the phrase "Everything changed on 9/11", and it's the sort of excuse for massive sweeping reforms that'd make Stalin proud.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    52. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Very few people believe in anything in Washington. Only one of the presidential candidates in the primaries did, and he's not either of the two people running for president right now.

      It's all about excuses, and Bush did his party a disservice by sticking to this pro-war agenda. His soviet style "people's liberation armies" are going to do to us what they did to Soviet Russia.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    53. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by McNally · · Score: 1

      That pattern can be explained in a single word: gerrymandering.

      Hint: Stevens is a senator, serving the entire state of Alaska. For that matter, our lone congressional representative here in Alaska is also elected by the entire state, as the population of the state is not large enough to qualify for more than one congressional district. Gerrymandering explains nothing about Alaska's federal office-holders.

    54. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It may be wise for the US to implement a regulation that politicians have a spending limit to avoid building up huge deficits

      Please tell me the section of the United States Constitution that would allow for a 'regulation' that would limit spending? I suppose you could implement it in the House and/or Senate rules but I don't think that would prove to be very effective (they can waive and/or change their rules at will).

      The only way you could do it would be through a Constitutional Amendment and that's a pretty daunting task.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    55. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Hellburner · · Score: 1

      Term limits solve nothing. They just lead to total institutional inexperience and move corruption one rung to the side --- either state/federal bureaucrats or lobbyist "culture".

      We elect those we deserve. The election methodology (run-offs, what-have-you...) and mandatory public financing would help.

      As much as I cringe...term limits should be abolished...even for the Presidency. It is up to an informed electorate. Term limits only ensure that a new set of rubes is rotated in every 6 to 10 years. Is that long enough to complete infrastructure overhaul? Long enough for Moon/Mars planning and execution? Long enough for a creation of a health care system? Not likely. The next gang of idiots just slashes what the last gang started

    56. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      For example, it can't tell you why you should be alive. There's no logical reason to life or to die.

      Not so. I can quite rationally justify why I should continue living. Given: I enjoy life a great deal, on average. If I die, what awaits me is either oblivion (at best), or eternal torment (since I'm not religious, I doubt I'll be making it into any god's paradise). Thus, to live is a better option than to die. Rational thinking handles a lot more situations than people give it credit for.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    57. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with some pretty blatant gerrymandering, Utah republicans can't oust democrat Jim Matheson from congress because they keep nominating idiots to run against him.

      You know, maybe this guy, who keeps getting elected over and over, is doing something right, rather than the opposing force doing something wrong. Maybe it's not that the Republicans keep running idiots against him; maybe he's not such a shitty choice after all.

      On the other hand, if the Republicans are running idiots against him, do they deserve the seat? Should a seat go to an idiot on the basis of party affiliation? Should a seat go to a party that runs idiots? Should a seat go to a party engaged in blatant gerrymandering?

    58. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by sheldon · · Score: 1

      I'm not in favor of this (nor do I think yours is a bad idea), but the logical end to your suggestion is this: Why not just do away with the concept of 'representation' and just let every individual vote on every law?

      Seems to me my position is the middle ground. :-)

      I agree with the representative democracy instead of direct democracy. What I don't agree with is having congressional districts representing a million people, solely because Congress set an arbitrary number of congress critters back some 90 years ago. I say let it grow.

      And the great thing is, the more congress critters we have the fewer unelected staffers we need, and the less power any one individual critter can have.

    59. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And this, to a large part, is caused by the committee system in congress, which concentrates power in the hands of the congressmen who have been there the longest. If you replace an incumbent then your state loses influence in DC, which gives every voter an incentive to vote for whoever is in power now.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    60. Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I'll take the stupidity of the whole over the tyranny of one any day of the week.

      I actually am starting to lean back to the tyranny of the one.

      The one tends to have a much more limited imagination than the whole, and as such may miss things.

      For instance, a "reich of mccain" would ignore the internet, and thus we would be free, because he has no idea how it works.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  7. So what I want to know by Oh+no,+it's+Dixie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How did he stay in office so long if there was already evidence of corruption in 2003 and 2004?

    1. Re:So what I want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's rich and white.

    2. Re:So what I want to know by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "How did he stay in office so long if there was already evidence of corruption in 2003 and 2004?"

      The same way Dan Rostenkowski did and Marion Barry and Murtha after Abscam:

      "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch"

      Also keep in mind that he has brought home a lot of bacon to the residents of Alaska, and they probably view such minor corruption as a cross they just have to bear to get the goodies. Remember, the "bridge to nowhere" ALMOST got approved.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    3. Re:So what I want to know by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How did he stay in office so long if there was already evidence of corruption in 2003 and 2004?

      The same way that William Jefferson of New Orleans did (and still is).

      (Who, BTW, in response to the AC that also responded to your post, is NOT white)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:So what I want to know by sheldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or the same way John Mccain did after Keating Five.

      Didn't Rostenkowski go to prison?

    5. Re:So what I want to know by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Only take on the king if you are going to kill the king.

    6. Re:So what I want to know by Binary+Boy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Chappaquiddick happened 7 years after Kennedy first joined the Senate. As far as I know, he plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, but was never charged, let alone convicted or murder or even manslaughter.

      Kennedy was hardly senior in the Senate when this happened, though of course as a Kennedy he likely had more deference paid than had he been from a lesser known family.

    7. Re:So what I want to know by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Make that William "Dolla Bill" Jefferson. New Orleans pols are some of the most entrenched and traditionally corrupt. What many people don't understand about the last race, where an idiot was re-elected (Nagin) was STILL the more palatable choice, because his opponent was actually part of the Morial crew who PRECEDED Nagin and was MORE corrupt and would have done as BAD a job during Katrina as Nagin did.

    8. Re:So what I want to know by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      Yes, corruption so clearly is not a race thing as evidenced by the Hip-Hop mayor in my beloved state. Corruption is clearly color-blind. Maybe rather corruption is monochromatic (GREEN).

    9. Re:So what I want to know by Anynomous+Coward · · Score: 1

      In corrupt Alaska bears get YOU goodies !

      --
      I'm not a coward by any name.
    10. Re:So what I want to know by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      How did he stay in office so long if there was already evidence of corruption in 2003 and 2004?

      You must be new. Let me be the first to welcome you to the United States.

    11. Re:So what I want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did he stay in office so long if there was already evidence of corruption in 2003 and 2004?

      His last election was in 2002

    12. Re:So what I want to know by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      He was framed by the people who killed JFK!

      Or something.

      Sometimes I like reading conspiracy theories on the internet.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    13. Re:So what I want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is, alas, Alaska. As an Alaskan, I can tell you it is probably the must financially corrupt, and nepotistic state I have ever lived in (and I have lived in quite a few). With the amount of $ and power the oil, mining and fishing companies have, it's no wonder. I'm actually surprised they were able to get this guy at all.

      This is the state where the govenor gave his daughter a seat on the US Senate for christmass.

      And bought himself a private jet, cause he didn't like living in the capital.

      It is about time they pegged this guy.

    14. Re:So what I want to know by monkeyman_67156 · · Score: 1

      Because senators server 6-year terms.

    15. Re:So what I want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bridge to Nowhere" is one of those titles that implies a different image than is valid, like "Patriot Act".

      You have two islands, one is inhabited by thousands of people, the other has an international airport. Between the two, you have a ferry service that moves half a million people a year. At five dollars per person and six per vehicle, you're seeing several million dollars a year dumped in.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

      $400 million dollars, quite a bit of money. Translates to the cost of the Iraq war for roughly Yesterday.

    16. Re:So what I want to know by Myopic · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a bridge to nowhere, it was a bridge to an airport... ...an extremely overpriced and under-needed bridge to an airport. The locals did need improved access to their airport, and federal dollars improve airports all over the nation every day, but in this case they would have been fine with an improved vehicle ferry.

      Also, the bridge did get approved, before it was recalled.

      You are obviously highly informed about this issue.

    17. Re:So what I want to know by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It was stupid bridge that went far out of the way so that it would hop onto an island that would then have road access to drive up real estate there. The shortest bridge was not used because it wouldn't be able to improve the real estate gambles made by politicians and their friends and family.

    18. Re:So what I want to know by McNally · · Score: 1

      So what I want to know..
      How did he stay in office so long if there was already evidence of corruption in 2003 and 2004?

      He's up for re-election this year. Senatorial terms are six years, thus he hasn't stood for election since 2002.

    19. Re:So what I want to know by drew · · Score: 1

      Actually, it DID get approved. It was later canceled, but the state of Alaska still got to keep the money that had been earmarked for it for other projects.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  8. Lesson: Don't name airports after living people by AssTard · · Score: 0, Interesting

    ... who may potentially still turn out bad. Anchorage Int'l Airport was renamed Ted Stevens Int'l Airport a few years ago, fyi.

    --

    Asses are for crapping, not screwing.
  9. senator's don't do hard time they get put in to... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    senator's don't do hard time they get put in to camps or less.

  10. Tubes Stevens = Ranking member of the Science cte. by DeafDumbBlind · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yep. crazy.

    --


    Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
  11. Tubes dance mix by theCat · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    1. Re:Tubes dance mix by King+Gabey · · Score: 1

      Haha, I like the images in that mix. Personally this one is still my favorite. http://youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

  12. Tubes are the future! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Being that the internet is a series of tubes, rather than a truck, Teddy didn't feel that he should have to pay taxes; money which would have been used partially to maintain roads.

    Roads are obsolete. So are taxes, apparently. Just ask Sen. Stevens.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    1. Re:Tubes are the future! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roads are obsolete

      You are the head of the Design and Construction Standards Section of the Alaska Dept of Transportation and I claim my five pounds!

  13. The indictment (pdf) by jamie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    text of the indictment is now available.

    It was a part of the scheme that STEVENS, while during that same time period that he was concealing his continuing receipt of things of value from ALLEN and VECO from 1999 to 2006, received and accepted solicitations for multiple official actions from ALLEN and other VECO employees, and knowing that STEVENS could and did use his official position and his office on behalf of VECO during that same time period.

    That sounds like good old-fashioned bribery to me, but with our screwed-up laws it's probably a lot easier to convict a politician for lying about the bribes than for taking the bribes.

    1. Re:The indictment (pdf) by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Well, they put Al Capone in prison for tax evasion, rather than murder, extortion, kidnapping, and other violent crimes. We have a strange system, don't we?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:The indictment (pdf) by evwah · · Score: 1

      if he had just lied about getting a beej as a bribe, he'd be off the hook

    3. Re:The indictment (pdf) by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

      It speaks volumes about the real priorities of your government.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

  14. As a lifelong Alaskan... by 7Prime · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let me be the first to shout:

    "Yeee-hawww!!!"

    Good riddence! The coming Alaska senate race is going to be one of the most interesting in history. I suggest everyone look into it. On the democratic front, we've got popular Anchorage city mayor, Mark Beigich, who's taken the election scene by storm in just the last month or so. And Stevens, being a long time incombant, is running virtually unopposed on the republican front.

    In the house, rep. Don ("I'll beat you over the head with a walrus penis") Young is having even more trouble, due to falling public perception and the VICO scandal. This long-time incumbent may be KOed in the primary by our Lt. Governor.

    The republicans only star runners, at this point, are Gov. Sarah Palin and Lt Gov. Sean Parnel. Parnel is running against Young in the house, and Sarah just had a child and is busy fighting some of her own battles.

    Translation: the alaska republican party is FUCKED. Before the year is out, there's a very good chance we'll see our one house seat filled by a Dem, one of our Senate seats filled by a Dem, and the state's electoral votes go to Barak Obama (currently a very close race). AK is one of the most conservative and republican states in the country, btw.

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    1. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And Stevens, being a long time incombant, is running virtually unopposed on the republican front.

      How long is it going to stay that way? This might just be the best thing that could have happened to the GOP -- if Stevens loses a primary and the Democrat has to run against somebody who isn't under investigation for corruption can he still win in that heavily Republican state?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      AK is one of the most conservative and republican states in the country, btw.

      Alaskans love calling themselves conservative. However, when it actually comes down to the issues, they seem to be pretty strong liberals (I'd call them anarcho-socialists, even though the term is somewhat self-contradictory)

      A few observations:
      1) They're pro-gun rights, but more in the "protecting yourself from grizzlies" sense than then the "self defense against unarmed burglar" sense.

      2) Pro-drug-legalization. 20+ hours/day of darkness in the wintertime. 'Nuff said.

      3) Surveillance isn't an issue. (Seriously)

      4) Pro-alternative-energy. Alaskans are among the first to see the real effects of climate change. In places like Fairbanks, the temperature inversion in the winter also causes smog to hang low to the ground, and accumulate over the course of the winter, which has a very noticeable effect.

      5) The bible belt hasn't really infiltrated Alaska nearly as much as it has the other "red states". People actually seem to be vaguely rational regarding social issues.

      6) Pro-military. Tons of military bases in Alaska. Like much of the military, they're also a bit uneasy about the number of dead bodies returning from Iraq.

      7) Pro-small-government. If you enjoy living in the middle of nowhere, you probably don't support a large, overbearing government.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by sheldon · · Score: 1

      I thought you were going to say "pro welfare", as the Alaskan govt actually pays people to live there. :-)

    4. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      Umm... most of the bullet items in your list describe fairly conventional conservative opinions. Gun Rights, Small government, Pro-military is about as conventionally conservative as you can get. You've essentially described the Reagan era Republican party platform. Drug legalization & anti-surveillance are less conventionally republican but pretty commonly held corollaries of #7 among conservative intellectuals. Only 4 & 5 are problematic from a conservative ideology though you'd still find plenty of conservative's that advocate for either. Though, support for either is usually for one or the other but not both... the libertarian right that is in opposition to the Religious Right would also oppose government involvement in mandating alternative energy whereas there are some voices on the Religious Right that are comfortable with environmental mandates as part of mankind's obligation as "stewards" of God's creation.

    5. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by Myopic · · Score: 2, Funny

      As a fellow Alaskan, and newly-registered Democrat, I will bet you real dollars that the scenario you described doesn't happen. Alaskans would sooner vote for Kim Il Sung than for a Democrat. Weren't you in the state for Lisa Murkowski's election? I'm just sayin'.

    6. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      1, 2, 6, and 7 are conservative. As for 2, no one is pro legalization in the legislature, but lots of people would like it, so the politics are quite pro-prohibition, regardless of what people claim they want. #3 is a non-issue as you say, so it doesn't lean either way. #4 is an odd duck in that Alaska is pro-alternative-energy, but also very pro-using-natural-resources (well, except for all the rich white fishing guides that oppose the Pebble Mine because they fear the unknown - which is again conservative). They want all sorts of alternative energy, but still want to pull every last drop of oil out. If you were to put ANWR to a vote of Alaskans, it would pass opening it up by a wide margin. For #5, it again is a non-statement. It's more of the "leave people alone" attitude when you have more space, but the people are still predominantly socially conservative.

      The way I look at it, Alaska is dominated by conservatives with a healthy helping of hippies. It's like taking Utah and having 1/4 of Salt Lake being transplants from the '60s era San Francisco. It would still be predominantly conservative, but if you looked in the right places and squinted, it might look a little liberal at the same time.

      And Alaskans say they are for small government, but vote for the national candidates that promise to spend the most money (look at the political adds for Stevens and Young, touting their ability to waste taxpayer money, as if the location of the waste somehow makes it worthwhile). But the "seem like you are for small government but really just spend it on my issues" is a neo-con ideal. The liberals love to spend the exact same as the neo-cons, but the neo-cons claim they aren't and the liberals make no excuses.

    7. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      The state has a large endowment left over from the revenue they earn as a result of the oil drilling that goes on in their state (currently around $40 billion).

      Part of the interest of that endowment is distributed to the citizens, given that there are relatively few of them. It amounts to about $1650/year currently.

      What, exactly, is wrong with a successful government sharing some of the wealth with its people? It's definitely not "welfare," and depending on how much you make, your taxes can easily outstrip whatever it is that you receive from the permanent fund.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    8. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      This may be true, but the mindset of the stereotypical Alaskan is pretty different from your typical red-state conservative.

      For one, their "pro-gun" viewpoints probably don't consider handguns or things like concealed carry.

      If you haven't noticed, the Bush administration hasn't been particularly conservative in the conventional/traditional sense. In fact, given how much money Bush spent, you could argue that he's not a conservative at all.

      Like I said... anarcho-socialist. The government should attempt to provide for the well-being of its citizens, but also shouldn't attempt to regulate every aspect of its citizens lives.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    9. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by mikael · · Score: 1

      They're pro-gun rights, but more in the "protecting yourself from grizzlies" sense than then the "self defense against unarmed burglar" sense.

      When you have grizzlies prowling the streets at night in below zero temperatures is probably a better deterrent against burglars than shotgun wielding homeowners.

      There was adocumentary on Alaskan towns - due to the small town size and cold temperatures, many of the shops would actually be built together as one building (Wooden shack type shopping mall). So that too would act as a disincentive to any burglar.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    10. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      For one, their "pro-gun" viewpoints probably don't consider handguns or things like concealed carry.

      What makes you say that? They're one of only two states in the union that allows concealed carry *without a permit*. Plus their state law forbids localities to write hand gun regulations so no locality can supersede the very liberal (in the old sense) state law. They are far more pro-hand gun and pro-concealed carry than almost any other state, even the other "red" states. I suspect you are projecting your own beliefs onto Alaskans rather than objectively perceiving where they actually stand.

      If you haven't noticed, the Bush administration hasn't been particularly conservative in the conventional/traditional sense. In fact, given how much money Bush spent, you could argue that he's not a conservative at all.

      I hadn't brought Bush up at all. But yes, I have noticed and most conservatives have noticed as well. He's a perfect exemplar of Nixon's old advice to "run to the right, govern to the left", though it hasn't worked out that well for him politically. His major domestic policy initiatives would be a source of pride for any liberal democrat had they been behind it. Huge increases in domestic spending on health care (Medicare prescription drug benefit) and education ("No child left behind" - a law largely written by Ted Kennedy which passed with more Democratic than Republican votes despite Democrats bashing Bush with it when it proved unpopular). Bush is only considered conservative because of his rhetoric, the "R" after his name and for his aggressive foreign policy (which paleo-conservatives and conservative libertarians don't consider conservative at all... ).

      There's seemingly an inexorable pull to steal policy positions from you're opponents when you're president, I think it's because a president *must* be seen to succeed politically and the only way to guarantee that is if you propose to implement your opponents policies. Party discipline gets you most of your parties votes despite their misgivings; Sincere desire gets your opponents votes. You win a big vote, are perceived as a political mastermind and get to implement a major policy proposal. In domestic policy that's been Bush's modus operandi as it was Clinton's in mirror image before him.

      Like I said... anarcho-socialist. The government should attempt to provide for the well-being of its citizens, but also shouldn't attempt to regulate every aspect of its citizens lives.

      I guess I don't see a huge "socialist" component to the thoughts of the Alaskans aside from the share of oil money they get from the state which you didn't bring up. Alaskan political thought seems to tilt towards typically western conservative libertarianism. With some exceptions of course, very few people are real consistent or doctrinaire in their political beliefs one way or the other. *Everyone* likes socialism when it's writing *them* a check. It takes a pretty committed libertarian to turn down "free" money. On the other hand *everyone* hates socialism when it's telling them to do something they'd rather not.

    11. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by sheldon · · Score: 1

      What, exactly, is wrong with a successful government sharing some of the wealth with its people? It's definitely not "welfare," and depending on how much you make, your taxes can easily outstrip whatever it is that you receive from the permanent fund.

      How is it not welfare? Are people doing anything to earn that money? Where'd the money come from? Growing it on trees, or was it from a taxes? How is this not welfare?

      And if you've got $40 billion in the bank, why do you need my tax dollars to build massive bridges and such?

    12. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Because other states get money to build massive bridges.

      Why should the federal government punish the state for having a successful government that's been able to raise a surplus?

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    13. Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... by sheldon · · Score: 1

      You feel you are being punished if you don't receive welfare when you don't need it?

      No wonder Alaskan politicians feel like they are entitled to bribes.

  15. For Old Time's Sake by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Informative
    Let's revisit what Senator Stevens said, laugh at his imbecility, and shake our heads at the fragility of what little is left of net neutrality, and how it is in the hands of such clueless and ethically challenged people.

    Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) offered up this bizarre explanation for why he voted against net neutrality laws. In it, he explains how the internet works...

    "There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.

    But this service isn't going to go through the internet and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

    Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

    I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

    Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

    So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.

    We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discriminate against those people [...]

    The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time.

    They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

    It's a series of tubes.

    And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

    Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?

    Do you know why?

    Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.

    [...]

    Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.

    Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.

    It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.

    The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a violation of net neutrality that hits you and me."

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:For Old Time's Sake by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have no particular fondness for Sen. Stevens, but I hope everybody who made fun of him for calling the internet a series of tubes finds themselves in the same position when they're older.

      The guy hears the younger folks calling it a "pipe", he's got industry insiders telling him confusing, and misleading things about how the system works, and he screws up the analogy when he's talking about it later on. Big deal. Some day when you're not so young, you're going to screw up the jargon when you're talking about something new too.

      In the meantime, go ahead. Make fun of the old guy who wanted to guarantee individual net access just because he didn't know enough of the lingo to properly get his point across. (Yes, I realize that he came to the wrong conclusion policy wise to accomplish what he was saying he wanted to accomplish)

    2. Re:For Old Time's Sake by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      wow that was pretty funny. I love how stupid he sounds. I mean I think he left out that people pay for different levels of internet coverage and use the internet differently. I mean just becasue he is so old and doesn't understand or really use the internet doesn't mean we should be like "hey your IMs are going to go an extra 10 ms faster because you don't use the internet a lot".

    3. Re:For Old Time's Sake by 77Punker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I'm too old to understand what the fuck I'm talking about, I'll resign from congress and not try to legislate it.

      If he's too old to get it, it's time to get out. I wouldn't be angry about some other old man not understanding new technology, but he has power over it. That's dangerous.

    4. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Alzheimers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this was just my grandfather ranting about the kids today, I'd smile and nod.

      But this is a man who chaired the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation during the 109th Congress, and is still on the committee today. This is someone who is going to be making direct policy decisions about the internet, not some harmless rambling old man.

      Then again, he's also been the chairman of the Senate Ethics Committe. They really know how to pick them, don't they?

    5. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 1

      You know, I used to remember something about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions... In the end, it doesn't matter that what he wanted to accomplish was good. He doesn't have the knowledge necessary to make it happen, yet he's in a position of power of the very thing he doesn't know anything about. He damn well deserves to be criticized given his position.

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    6. Re:For Old Time's Sake by twbecker · · Score: 1

      So you honestly think it's just the jargon that's screwed up? Give me a break, the entire comment is incomprehensible to the point that you can't even decipher what it is he's trying to say.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
    7. Re:For Old Time's Sake by fprintf · · Score: 1

      I guess the point is, if you are too old to understand or articulate the merits of a policy change, you should stop talking and leave the voting (abstain) to the people who do understand. This country is run by grumpy old men, who sometimes just don't get it.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    8. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he screws up the analogy when he's talking about it later on. Big deal.

      Big deal?!?!

      We aren't talking about grandpa making an ass out of himself with his "get off my lawn" routine at the dinner table. This guy is in a very high up public office and making votes based on faulty premises. I see people like you trying to play it off as a failed analogy. As if he really understands it all upstairs but couldn't quite express it to us simple folk. No my friend. That was a deep look into his understanding of the internet. If he was just some random joe then it wouldn't matter but the fact is, he feels confident enough to make a vote that affects us all on something he doesn't even understand!

      In other words, VERY BIG FUCKING DEAL!

    9. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a policy maker and the matters about which he was making policy were beyond his ability (or willingness) to understand.

      As the passage cited clearly shows, he had no business AT ALL voting on (much less debating) that legislation.

      It's true, when I am older I fully expect to have difficulty following changes. I also expect to have the sense not to debate them without fully understanding them.

    10. Re:For Old Time's Sake by maxume · · Score: 1

      When you are too old to understand what the fuck you're talking about, you may not understand that you don't understand what you are talking about (because recognizing your incompetence would involve the same skills as the competence itself).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:For Old Time's Sake by CensorshipDonkey · · Score: 1

      He doesn't screw up the jargon, he screws up the concepts. If someone so intimately related to the future of the Internet cannot understand it, and we can't take away his responsibility for the Internet's future, our last recourse is ridicule before sobbing into our beers.

    12. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about stepping down then? Or not voting on this matter? Or listening to your constituents? Are those not choices?

      I agree that the mistake itself was no big deal, but you're saying his intentions were good, and I say good intentions matter none.

    13. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Make fun of the old guy who wanted to guarantee individual net access just because he didn't know enough of the lingo to properly get his point across. (Yes, I realize that he came to the wrong conclusion policy wise to accomplish what he was saying he wanted to accomplish)

      Let me point out that he isn't just "an old guy". He is a high-level professional who is supposed to be competently representing his state. If he isn't competent to do so, he shouldn't be in a position of responsibility.

      I'll save my sympathy for the harmless geezers at the rest home; the ethically compromised incompetents in the government don't deserve it.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    14. Re:For Old Time's Sake by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Yeah! He's a Senator, not grandpa! Best to make fun of him for using the wrong words, and not talking like the cool kids... Wouldn't want to complicate the argument by taking him to task about facts or positions.... He said tubes!!!!eleven!!

      Get the point yet?

    15. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Buran · · Score: 1

      If you don't understand what you are talking about, then you shut up until you do understand, you ask questions of people who do understand and let them explain things to you, or you let someone else do the talking. If you look like a fool, then you deserve what you get -- you had plenty of opportunity to make sure you didn't look like a fool.

    16. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't give him crap for calling it a "series of tubes" but he made a remark about how his staff had sent him "an internet" that was delayed for some reason.

      If your mental facilities have deteriorated to the point that you don't know what the word "e-mail" means then I really have to question why you are one of 100 people who gets to confirm lifetime Federal appointments and decide trivial stuff like whether or not the nation goes to war.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:For Old Time's Sake by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      Or if you don't have the proper education or knowledge about the subject (Cough-Bush-Hack).

    18. Re:For Old Time's Sake by geekoid · · Score: 1

      First off, it will happen to all of us, just that most of us won't be a Senator.

      Secondly, look at the whole speech. It's not a screwed up analogy, it is a complete lack of understanding about the basics of the internet.

      "(Yes, I realize that he came to the wrong conclusion policy wise to accomplish what he was saying he wanted to accomplish)"
      Then he didn't understand what he was talking about, did he?

      Yeah, I make fun of the guy for it, but it has nothing to do with his age.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:For Old Time's Sake by digitrev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People use the series of tubes quote because it's a nice short quote that demonstrates his lack of knowledge about the internet. The whole damn speech that "series of tubes" is a part of is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the older posts in this discussion for better explanations of why the "series of tubes" thing is just a symptom of his ignorance. You are completely missing the point: This man has power over things he doesn't even understand. It's the same level of frustration you get when your manager explains the latest programming paradigm to you: you just want to rip his head off and get him to shut the fuck up so you can do your goddamn job.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    20. Re:For Old Time's Sake by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I'm not defending his positions. I'm picking on the original poster, and the hundreds of other people like him that jump on the guy for using the wrong term, instead of presenting an argument of substance.

      I think he did understand what he was talking about in context. The context is that he was told that corporate users weren't paying to use the network, and net-neutrality meant they never would have to pay. Nobody bothered to explain to him that corporate users *do* pay to connect to the internet just like all the rest of us. He seems to have a rudimentary grasp of how the technology works sufficiently to make that simple type of policy decision. He's mostly lacking in understanding of how the business of the internet works.

      Lobbiests have this much influence over our senators, but we'll focus on the fact that he called internet connections "tubes" instead of a "pipe". What does that solve?

    21. Re:For Old Time's Sake by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Listen to this guy, he knows what he's talking about - look at his handle.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    22. Re:For Old Time's Sake by oldhack · · Score: 1

      I, too, think the analogy of internet as tubes that can fill up (limited bandwidth) isn't so bad. The things that came afterward (policy derivation), I'm lost how it went there. We are making fun of the wrong part of his speech, I think.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    23. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      Well then, it's a good thing I ain't in charge of the interwebs, ain't it?

    24. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Nimey · · Score: 1

      What if you don't understand that you don't understand? There's plenty of fuckwits who don't grok the depths of their fuckwittery. I imagine this would be worse when you're a powerful senator surrounded by political flunkies.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    25. Re:For Old Time's Sake by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with him not knowing what he's talking about.

      I have a big problem with the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about and he's writing laws about that subject, along with being on a major committee on the subject.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    26. Re:For Old Time's Sake by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      One more for the pile of people that missed the point.

      If you have a problem with his actions, talk about his actions. Don't make fun of him for talking funny.

      Believe me. You'll have better success persuading people to your position if your position is actually stated in the criticism.

    27. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, if you can get past the fact that he alternatively uses "Internet" to mean "the Internet", "a piece of email", or "a top-level domain", that's actually a rational argument. Misguided, but rational.

      The tubes bit conveys his basic point, and that of the ISPs, that there's a limited amount of bandwidth and that there is an argument to be made for limiting how it can be used (even if that argument is wrong).

      Frankly I think calling his email an internet is much funnier than the tubes thing - people should have run with that.

    28. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Bugs42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, God forbid we should expect someone on a committee that deals with communications to understand one of (if not the) most important methods of communication currently in use.

      --
      Programmer: an ingenious device that converts caffeine into code.
    29. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll do whatever I want, and I don't need to convince you of anything. You're a concern troll.

    30. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      But if you have any sense at all and you don't know for sure that you know what you're talking about, wouldn't you run it by someone who does know what he's talking about before talking about it in public?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    31. Re:For Old Time's Sake by edittard · · Score: 1

      Lobbiests have this much influence over our senators

      No, lobbiests are people who are the best at throwing a ball on a high plunging trajectory. Those who can do this with a good level of skill are merely lobby and those who are a little better are lobbier.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    32. Re:For Old Time's Sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't been following this issue at all, and I'm not politically motivated on either side, but I do have a few questions for everyone here who is so looking down on Stevens' use of the words "tubes" and his comments about "clogging" them. (Without coming to Stevens' defense. I'm not.)

      Is "tube" such a bad analogy for fiber-optic links, copper wires and even, to a certain extent, satellite connections?

      Is "flow through a tube" really so outlandish a way to imagine or describe bandwidth? (I'm not saying it's the BEST analogy out there, but is it really so unreasonable as everyone here seems to think?)

      And is the concept "total available internet bandwidth" such a ridiculous thing to talk about as all of you are assuming? Are you all implying that it's infinite?

      I just now did a quick google search on "internet bandwidth limits" and I came up with nothing but specific solutions to specific bandwidth problems. I didn't find anything (only looked a few seconds) discussing the subject of internet bandwidth as a whole, globally or in the US.

      Is such a discussion really beyond the pale?

      I wonder.

      It's so easy to laugh at the "old guy". But if anyone has any actual answers -- in the forms of links to articles discussing this subject -- I would be interested.

      And by the way, I am NOT an Anonymous Coward. I just signed up for a Slashdot username: sallyg. But they are taking FOREVER to mail my password and I want to post this and move with the rest of my life.

    33. Re:For Old Time's Sake by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      You know what? Senator Stevens may be a bit confused about the terminology, and may have what seems to Slashdotters to be an oversimplified understanding of the technologies involved, but the "tubes" metaphor is essentially valid. A network pipeline (see?) has a fixed upper limit on capacity, and when that capacity is reached, it will take longer for packets to reach their destination. These days the delays are typically measured in milliseconds and not days, but the point stands.

      If we must mock Stevens for anything, mock him for his apparent corruption and his failure to balance what's good for other states with what's good for his own, and not for being an older man struggling to understand the technological revolution of the past 20 years.

  16. Re:An alaskan perspective... by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 1
    Ted Stevens MIGHT be convicted. Until then he is innocent until proven guilty. And it would really benefit the state if he were to be acquitted.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahh.....um (wiping tear from eye)....hahahahahahahahahahaha...

    This is AMERICA! You're tried and convicted in the media and by the "law" because of the war on "terror", "drugs", or whatever.... The Government has all but abolished the 4th Amendment.

    That being said, he's a politician. How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips move....the same goes for salesmen.

    HaHhahahahahahah

    Ok, now to be serious, in Soviet Russia the politicians politicize you!

  17. Time to clean house by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And when will Dodd and the Democratic senators who got their mortgages personally handed to them by bank CEOs receive the same treatment? I'm not a partisan in this, and I do enjoy seeing Stevens go down, but this guy is just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that most of Congress would have to be indicted if a sweeping investigation were done.

    1. Re:Time to clean house by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Informative

      When will it be Reid's Turn?

      It's credit mobilier all over again except this time it's housing instead of rail roads. Fannie Mae and Mac are schemes to buy votes with tax payer dollars and use more tax payer dollars to fund electoral campaigns.

      Both parties are in it up to their neck.

    2. Re:Time to clean house by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

      Umm.. "House"? - the guy is a Senator, but I agree with the sentiment.

      Well, a real good place to start would be with the *current* chairman of the House Ways and Means committee. So who really thinks he should have three rent-controlled apartments in Harlem for his personal use, plus a fourth rent-controlled apartment in the same building for his office? Particularly when the terms for the apartments in question make it real darn clear they are intended for residential use only. And the little maniac is collecting donations for his "congressional library"? (Come on, we already have one Library of Congress)

      Once he is gone, yes, lets just kick out everyone in the House or Senate with more than twelve years total service in Congress. For those who buy into the "valuable experience" being thrown away by term limits, remember we do that with the President after no more than ten years (First President since FDR to serve ten years will be when Obama is impeached/resigns/blown up by William Ayres and Hillary steps in in 2011).

      --

      You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    3. Re:Time to clean house by sheldon · · Score: 1

      Hardly the same thing, and as has been pointed out repeatedly the deals they got on their mortgages were on par with market rates.

    4. Re:Time to clean house by MrHyd3 · · Score: 0

      Well, they're Democrats, It's different! When a Republican is caught or screws up, they are ousted immediately and I like that. Democrats, most, not all, seem to revel in the face of their whistle-blowers with no penalty. These Democrats are actually elevated to higher status, how ironic. Funny how the party "for the people" are mostly all millionaires? They went in poor and came out millionaires? Hmmmmm....

      Harry Reid - Land deals
      Barb Boxer - Military contracts
      W. Jefferson - 90k cold cash in freezer
      Dozens of Dems - Loans from banks w/ lower interest than you or I.
      So many more.....

      --
      -------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
    5. Re:Time to clean house by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I suspect that most of Congress would have to be indicted if a sweeping investigation were done.

      Yes, please?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  18. Re:An alaskan perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The greater good? He takes money by force and reallocates it. You want to give him a medal, I want to have him executed for treason.

  19. Bad News for the Democrats by pnuema · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Democratic challenger to Steven's seat has actually been out-polling him in the last couple of weeks. The timing of this indictment means it is far more likely that Stevens will lose the primary next month, and Mark Begich will be facing a Republican without all of the baggage.

    1. Re:Bad News for the Democrats by stinerman · · Score: 1

      The timing of this indictment means it is far more likely that Stevens will lose the primary next month

      Not bloody likely. There are 3 other Republicans running against Stevens. If he stays in the race, the anti-Stevens vote will be split among the other 3, and Stevens will win.

      The Alaska Republican Party is in shambles right now. Just about every high-ranking member is under investigation for one thing or another as always happens when one party dominates a government for too long a time. Begich will win and face a tough re-election in 2014 once the Republicans can regroup.

    2. Re:Bad News for the Democrats by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Begich will win and face a tough re-election in 2014 once the Republicans can regroup.

      He'll have a tough election. So many people in this state vote on party that it's sad. Frank was one of the worst governors ever. For any state. Yet most people kind of knew it going in when he beat Fran. But they wouldn't vote Democrat. And when he blew it big-time, people still voted in the next Republican that was put up. And they will do it again. When's the last time Alaska sent a Democrat to Washington, or had electoral votes go to a Democrat for President? Begich will have a tough time. He did a good job as a mayor (well, aside from his over eagerness for some road projects that pissed off lots of people), but that won't matter to the party voters. And there are enough of them to make a difference. Whatever Republican with the fewest felony indictments makes it on the ballot will be the senator.

      But, to the reverse of this, because Stevens and Young spent so much time convincing people that sending a bad person back is better than voting in a new good one for longevity, if Begich does get it, I don't think the Republicans will be able to unseat him as easily as they think they might.

    3. Re:Bad News for the Democrats by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Who's the Alaska Independence Party running? :-)

  20. Bribes Don't Arrive in Dumptrucks... by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

    ...they arrive in a series of tubes! That's why we must limit bribes: they clog up the tubes.

  21. Re:An alaskan perspective... by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good he has done that will be a crying shame.

    So, you're saying... as long as he keeps the money flowing to you, you are willing to overlook lies and deception? Do you think he's clean as a whistle in all his other dealings, too?

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  22. Re:Tubes Stevens = Ranking member of the Science c by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

    The indictment accuses Stevens, former chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, of concealing payments of more than $250,000 in goods and services....

    Well, obviously he's "good at calculations"

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  23. Alaska, Voted #1 Destination for corruption! by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

    Wow that adn article is hilarious. Alaska is just crawling with these guys. I guess since its so cold and boring in alaska they have nothing better to do than steal. I mean it just kept going on and on.

    1. Re:Alaska, Voted #1 Destination for corruption! by StonedYoda47 · · Score: 1

      It only appears like Alaska is #1 for corruption because Jersey's list of corruption would take a book, not a newspaper article. The tubes would be clogged thick after that.

    2. Re:Alaska, Voted #1 Destination for corruption! by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      It only appears like Alaska is #1 for corruption because Jersey's list of corruption would take a book, not a newspaper article. The tubes would be clogged thick after that.

      Than they really would need a dump truck instead of a series of tubes. I am starting to think that all these corruption scandals are clogging them up. Either that or we need a "Scandal Network" just like the department of defense so our messages can get around faster!

  24. Big Surprise by al0ha · · Score: 0

    Another megalomaniac politician is found corrupt. When will we ever become aware of what would be a true surprise, a politician who is found incorruptible? Perhaps when the people of America demand a return to a government for and by the people; instead of our current aristocratic governmental system. This system includes the candidate many of you currently "Hope" will usher in some sort of dramatic change. NOT!

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
  25. BTW, I'm an example of the broken "Funny" mod by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 1, Insightful
    See posting history. I'm posting at "0" now.

    Just because some folks don't understand satire.

    God forbid if our founding Fathers posted here...then again, I'm sure they've run into the same thing and folks burned their pamphlets.

    I'll never stop. I'll keep pushing buttons until the cops stop me...OK, maybe a little more....but I'll REALLY stop when the Government points a gun at me or puts me in a "Free Speech Zone" - see Bush administration.

  26. Why do Democrats even bother running? by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

    At the rate we Republicans are going, all of our guys are going to wind up in jail.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Why do Democrats even bother running? by clam666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They deserve it. They've completely screwed themselves by not having even a nodding look at conservatism. Republicans had their time to prove themselves, and they proved they're just as bad and hypocritical as the democrats, and now they're going to lose the exectuive and legislative branches.

      Many people, regardless of their "party" or lack thereof, are fiscally conservative and socially liberal in their day to day lives. We generally don't want to pay 90% in taxes, and we don't generally care what people do in their own homes, in their own lives, and we prefer if they don't get involved in telling us what we should be doing in our own lives either.

      democrats and republicans have both failed completely, frankly I don't know what the difference is, other than republican's extremism is religion and democrat's extremism is environmental.

      --
      I'm a satanic clam.
    2. Re:Why do Democrats even bother running? by Chineseyes · · Score: 1

      Many people, regardless of their "party" or lack thereof, are fiscally conservative

      Every time I hear someone say my fellow Americans are fiscally conservative I get a good laugh out of it. You must have missed out on the whole mortgage crisis and the fact that 43% of Americans spend more than they make thus continuing their slide into debt and eventual bankruptcy.

      America is such a fiscally conservative country that we bailout banks to the tune of 25 billion dollars , repeatedly bailed out airlines for a couple of dozen billion every couple of decades, bailed out S&L associations costing the American taxpayer another 124 billion, subsidize the agricultural industry at 16 billion dollars a year.

      I could make this even worse by mentioning the costs of needlessly invading Iraq in search of WMD or talk about all the wonderful pork projects and "terror funding" that gets wasted but there are people who have written books on the subject and detail this much better than I ever could.

      --
      I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

      --A wise old fart named SC0RN
    3. Re:Why do Democrats even bother running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the problem with that is what, exactly?

    4. Re:Why do Democrats even bother running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny that you think the country has libertarian leanings despite their complete inability to wield any power.

  27. As much as we like to joke about this guy... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Informative

    his technological incompetence is the least of anybody's problems (yes, he's on the committee for regulating our future livelihoods and should understand this stuff..)

    He's the guy who wanted the bridge to nowhere.... let's be frank that's a much larger problem than his blustering.

    This is good - maybe the system works? It's too early to see

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:As much as we like to joke about this guy... by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He's the guy who wanted the bridge to nowhere.... let's be frank that's a much larger problem than his blustering.

      The people on the island that the bridge would have gone to didn't even want the damn bridge. I seriously doubt it'd have ever been built.

      On the other hand, the second "bridge to nowhere" that got struck down would have been fairly useful, even though it was presently uninhabited, as it would have connected directly to the heavily-congested Anchorage metropolitan area, opening new land up for development.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    2. Re:As much as we like to joke about this guy... by cpeterso · · Score: 1

      Don't forget his Airport to Nowhere, a handout to Seattle-based Trident Seafoods Corp.

  28. Re:An alaskan perspective... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 0, Troll

    You should work on your reading comprehension. I never said guilt doesn't matter. I never said removing corruption doesn't matter. In fact, I said they DO matter.

    BTW, just so you can try again, here is what I said:

    Our state certainly needs to rid itself of corruption.

    He should of course take the blame for his actions.

    And regarding 'pork barrel projects' maybe you should read my last paragraph as to why I think this is a bad thing. It's the idea of a well-balanced government, with checks and balances, instead of a one-sided government. It's called democracy, you should try it sometime.

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  29. Re:An alaskan perspective... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until then he is innocent until proven guilty.

    People in positions of power shouldn't get such benefits. Every last one of them should be set under The Sword of Damocles, hanging by the barest of thread. If you consider robbing the rest of the country for the benefit of Alaska a good thing, especially with the vast riches it possesses, then there's not a hell of a lot to tell you. Especially with your whining about "liberals". Socialism must be a good thing when you're the one who benefits. But when somebody actually needs it, they're a bunch of leeches. Kinda sick thinking.

    --
    What?
  30. Re:An alaskan perspective... by SgtAaron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a great fear that nobody else (the up-and-comer Mark Begich for example) will be able to pull the kind of strings in Washington that Stevens was able to pull -- at least not for decades.

    Ah well there's the catch. So, Alaskans don't care if they elect dumb, corrupt politicians just so long as they bring in the pork for the state? I've often wondered about the electees from Alaska. Murkowski... now there's another story. He resigns to become governor and then appoints his daughter in his place?

    What about the common good of the country as a whole? Your senator does not merely pass laws that affect only Alaska, but all the other 300 million of us. And powerful, corrupt politicians like yours have been coming up with dumbass laws that affect all the US for decades. For just one fun example, how about the Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Choice Act.

    Our state certainly needs to rid itself of corruption. If Stevens is convicted it will be a sad day.

    I'm a bit dumbfounded by this. What on earth could be sad about kicking out a senator that has been proven corrupt? Oh.. yeah, he's powerful and brings money and investment, not to mention I'm sure great parties with the oil execs at the Chalet.

    I know what it's like to lose a powerful government rep. Tom Foley was speaker of the house until he was the first speaker to be unseated in ages (or maybe forever, I forget). His opponent, Nethercutt, a replublican, chided Foley for being in office so long--how does one get to be speaker otherwise?--and promised to serve only two terms. Haha. Well, that promise went out the window. Anyway, eastern Washington survived gaining a lying newbie representative, I'm sure Alaska will get over this fiasco.

    -Aaron

  31. I guess his experience will be... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    $urreal, and totally tubular, and if on YouTube, then it'll be $irReel...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  32. News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flash!! Republican indicted! Must... post... to... Slashdot...

  33. Re:An alaskan perspective... by Gat0r30y · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Perhaps i'm an idiot, but I still don't quite get how precisely it is in the interest of the greater good (or benefit the state) that the esteemed senator from Alaska goes un-prosecuted and the light of day never shines on his actions. If you wouldn't mind clarifying I would greatly appreciate it. Additionally, would it really be impossible to imagine someone from a different political party (D, or even perhaps an I?) who would

    explore and develop our natural resources like oil, gold and copper

    ? Really? The letter next to your name determines whether you will allow things to be dug out of the ground? Or perhaps its just that adhering to environmental regulations already in place might cut into profits a little?

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
  34. Re:An alaskan perspective... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 0, Troll

    I never said that. It's amazing how some people misinterpret what others say and only hear what they want to hear.

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  35. Sure takes a long time to convict Congressmen by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, we've got Tom Delay, William Jefferson, and Ted Stevens (that I can recall off the top of my head) with outstanding indictments. All of these cases have been ongoing for YEARS. It took them 4 years to indict Stevens, and those indictments don't even cover the perjury or bribery charges. William Jefferson was busted red handed and he's still hanging around. These aren't complicated cases. I'd love to know why the wheels seem to grind so slowly for them. Hmmmmmm.....

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Sure takes a long time to convict Congressmen by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      Lack of evidence / motive probably. Ted's indictment in particular is questionable, because he wasn't really around for the crime he is accused of committing, and everything else against him is other people doing things to him. Its like going in for a tire change, getting an unlisted discount, then having the FBI knock down your door a year later for it. Only it wasn't you that took your car in for the tire change. And your super rich and wipe your ass with that discount money. And your old and probably have a bad memory.

  36. William Jefferson (D, LA) Called by strelitsa · · Score: 1

    He's intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter, Ted.

    --
    No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
  37. Tubes by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    I bet if he goes to prison, he'll get a whole network's worth of tubes shoved up his decrepit cornhole.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  38. Re:An alaskan perspective... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

    There are a few things I'd like to say here:

    I don't think he should go without prosecution. (Although the timing is suspect...) He is subject to the same laws we all are, and he deserves to be prosecuted for alleged crimes he may have committed. What I hope though is that he is acquitted and shown to be innocent. That is the situation in which I said it will be in the interest of the greater good and mostly for the reason I gave at the end of my original post.

    As far as any Democrat actually pushing for development of our resources, such as ANWR or the Pebble Mine, you can bet your ass that will not happen. Because they all think doing so will hurt the environment.

    However.. adherence to environmental regulations is something the oil companies and mining companies have really shown they can be good at now. They are good. Exxon's spill was a long time ago and since then there have been great strides towards being 'green' and developing our resources safely and cleanly...

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  39. Dumocrap setup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... a little bit too neat...

  40. Re:An alaskan perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but by "petty", i guess you are saying some laws don't really matter in the grand scheme.

    care to tell us what laws YOU decided don't matter?

  41. Re:An alaskan perspective... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    Ted Stevens MIGHT be convicted. Until then he is innocent until proven guilty.

    The summary didn't say he was convicted, it said he was indicted.

    He might not be the most technologically savvy senator in the USA but he certainly has done a great deal for the state, much more than any other politician.

    At MY expense, since I don't live in Alaska.

    Our state certainly needs to rid itself of corruption.

    Not mine; mine needs MORE corruption, so we can get rid of state taxes and have the rest of the nation pay our way like yours does.

    If Stevens is convicted it will be a sad day

    Only for Alaskans; everyone else in the nation will benefit.

    Instead, the damage comes from the hurt this does to the Republican party in Alaska. You know, the people who want to explore and develop our natural resources like oil, gold and copper. Now that is unlikely to happen.

    You say that like it's a bad thing. Some of us would like at least a little of our nation left unexploited, and a little of the oil, gold, and copper to be left to our decendants.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  42. Re:An alaskan perspective... by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No. What he's saying is that he did a great amount of good in the first 35 years of his senate career, and then went a bit overboard toward the end.

    He did a good job of convincing the Senate that Alaska was important to the nation as a whole, and that it required a disproportionate amount of federal funding (in comparison to the population) to fulfill this role. Alaska supplies most of our domestic oil, and is of considerable military importance. I don't doubt any of these things, and didn't mind my tax dollars being spent this way.

    Unfortunately, he found that he had an innate ability to convince the senate to spend money on his state, and let more than a few frivolous projects through. Fortunately, the federal government has a good system of checks and balances in place, and these were mostly blocked.

    Honestly, I think he's just getting old and senile.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  43. Re:An alaskan perspective... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit dumbfounded by this. What on earth could be sad about kicking out a senator that has been proven corrupt?

    Uhm, oh I don't know... maybe the part about him being corrupt?

    Is this a trick question?

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  44. It's Not That These Guys Are Being Bought... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    But how damn little it takes to buy them that shocks me. FTFA, it seems you can buy an Alaska State Senator for about $2,000 and lunch. The Speaker of the House will cost you less than $10,000. And this is to do favors worth millions if not billions to those doing the bribing. Definitely low-rent sleazeballs.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  45. Re:An alaskan perspective... by stinerman · · Score: 1

    Wow, you must have some serious perception skills because I couldn't determine the ideology of Dekortage by his comment.

  46. Re:An alaskan perspective... by cptdondo · · Score: 1

    adherence to environmental regulations is something the oil companies and mining companies have really shown they can be good at now. They are good.

    Gah. Horsepuckey. Didn't BP just settle some big lawsuit over letting a few gallons of oil run all over the ground due to an utter lack of maintenance?

    Where I live, we have mercury in our rivers because the mining companies have all gone 'bankrupt' leaving the taxpayers with the mess.

    Anyway, that statement alone is enough to cast serious doubt on everything else you said. Basically, your position as as long as it's a Republican crook, it's OK with you.

  47. Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought the Republican message that Democrats are not honest and that all Democrats are bad in the end and that you can't go wrong with a Republican. Now this Ted affair shatters my world view. What gives? Please help, I'm lost, not to mention untold amounts of money the republicans spent promoting the message.

    1. Re:Shocking by east+coast · · Score: 1

      When both sides have the same message and the same tactics I guess you're the fool for believing either side is in the right all the time.

      And in all honesty, the goings on of one or a small number of people within a party shouldn't sway you too far. If that was the case you wouldn't bother with politics at all.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  48. Re:An alaskan perspective... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

    You are familiar with the concept that some crimes are worse than others and are punished differently because of this? I.E. "petty theft" carries a lesser punishment than "premeditated murder".

    Both are crimes and both should have punishment. But I never said 'some laws don't really matter.'

    Seriously, what is it with Slashdot today? Did the morons just crawl out from under their rocks and jump up on their high horses?

    I am sick and tired of people like you who put words into other people's mouths and pretend like that's what the other person said. You're so annoying. How do I get rid of you? Seriously, tell me how. That would make life so much better.

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  49. Re:An alaskan perspective... by Buran · · Score: 1

    You don't seem to comprehend what you have written. Think about what you write before you blame others for having reading comprehension.

    You said that "He should of course take the blame for his actions". But you also said "If Stevens is convicted it will be a sad day."

    Does not compute. If you are guilty of doing something wrong (I know he hasn't been actually convicted yet, but that's up for the juries/evidence to show), then YOU SHOULD BE CONVICTED.

    Seems to me you're saying that if it's shown that he's guilty, he should get off.

    Seems to me you didn't comprehend your own post.

  50. Nobody by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Being indicited is nothing. Yet. Once convicted, either W or McCain will pardon him, if they are in office. Considering that the pubs appear to have interesting item on the dems (why would the dems, most of all waxman, not lift the gag order on Sibel Edmunds), even Obama might pardon him.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Nobody by guaigean · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Being indicited is nothing. Yet. Once convicted, either W or McCain will pardon him, if they are in office.

      Don't be so sure on that one. Although I'm not fan of the major parties, McCain and Stevens have been opposing each other on key issues for a long time. Probably the most distinctive between the two is the issue of earmarking. McCain's opposition and Stevens' abuse of them have been completely polar stances on the issue.

      Just because people share the same political party does not mean their views do not vary widely, and the idea that 50% of politicians get to walk just because their party is in the white house is not reality.

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    2. Re:Nobody by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny

      McCain and Stevens have been opposing each other on key issues...

      Ah yes, the Geritol "Tastes great/Less Filling" debate.

    3. Re:Nobody by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      True, But McCain has for the last decade (esp for the last 2 years) been playing a game of play along to get along.
      Of course, that may just be long enough to get the seat and then go back to the McCain of 1990's and before.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Nobody by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that Bush would pardon him?

      The original statement made three faulty or potentially faulty assumptions. One was that he deserved a pardon or that he would get one for some undisclosed reason, Two was that it would be issued by either McCain or Bush, and three is that Obama isn't interested enough to make a declaration about.

      First, Their is no guarantee that there will be a pardon or that one would be expected to happen. And if there is a good reason for a pardon, then it isn't quite clear why that reason wouldn't be just as valid with Obama or any other party candidate taking office. The there is the entire idea of either McCain or Bush actually caring about it enough to issue a pardon. If convicted, his political career is pretty much over so he wouldn't be much use to either. He is already 84, so he wouldn't be much use politically in the long term.

      And all this is negated if he produces receipts showing that he purchased the items in question or that their costs were lower then the required reporting values and so on.

    5. Re:Nobody by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Showing receipts means absolutely SQUAT. Showing HIS money going into purchasing these means he is innocent. He would also have to explain exactly how he obtained all these items at below costs.

      As to pardons, I think W/McCain would use years of service and his current age for reason for pardon. Obama would have no reason other than getting along. Hopefully, if the man is guilty, he does a LONG time. We need to start imprisoning congressman like Stevens, DeLay, Hastert and Jefferson as examples to others. In addition, this admin needs to undergo close scrutiny and the next president needs to allow it. We can not continue to have crooks in office. That is killing America.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Nobody by micheas · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, if the man is guilty, he does a LONG time.

      At 82 I doubt he will be doing much of anything for a long time.

      Although without the indictment, maybe senator porkbarrel would have stayed till his dying day.

  51. Re:An alaskan perspective... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    I never said removing corruption doesn't matter.

    However, you stated quite clearly that if he were acquitted, it would greatly benefit the state. The implication is pretty clear there.

    Of course you never said it -- like any good politician, you've managed to state your opinion... almost... maybe... but never quite, so that you can always claim "I never said that."

    The fact that you also say that it would be a good thing to remove corruption is sending mixed messages.

    And regarding 'pork barrel projects' maybe you should read my last paragraph as to why I think this is a bad thing.

    Let's look, shall we?

    Instead, the damage comes from the hurt this does to the Republican party in Alaska. You know, the people who want to explore and develop our natural resources like oil, gold and copper.

    That actually would tend to support more pork, not less, unless I'm missing something.

    Never mind the environmental implications, or the fact that there actually isn't really enough there to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil...

    Again, I realize you haven't said it. But your post seems to be very much hinting that you would rather the man goes free, guilty or not, in order to help your state more -- and purely financially.

    It doesn't take a "liberal extremist" to see that. It might even have been what you intended.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  52. Re:An alaskan perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The man is an uneducated fool who would do well to shut up about things he does not understand, much less attempt to shape policy for. whatever good he has done, it has been in HIS own best interest, not his constituents. You lose all credibility when you attempt to force change on something you dont comprhend, for the sake of big business.

  53. The joke... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    I'm not getting it. Anyone care to enlighten me?

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  54. Once again proving the old addage... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    Members of Congress are more likely to be indicted than lose an election.

    And, of course, unless he either gets convicted or goes the "spend more time with my family" route, he'll win re-election in spite of this.

  55. misspelling by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    And Stevens, being a long time incombant, is running virtually unopposed on the republican front.

    You misspelled "incompetent."

  56. Re:An alaskan perspective... by brkello · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do you have to label everyone and everything a liberal? It makes me sad that everyone has to be so partisan these days. It is like people actually believe the things that Rush Limbaugh says...which is scary to me. He is a polarizing force that skews things so that everything is the fault of the scary "liberals". Which is stupid, considering the Republicans have been in power and actually held the presidency, the house, and the senate simultaneously and still did nothing. This polarization crap is just like religion fanatics going at it. It reminds me of the guy who went and started to shoot up a church because the "liberal movement" was destroying the country. Seriously, we are all just people. We may have different views but we aren't going to get anywhere if we blame everything wrong in the world on liberalism or conservatism.

    --
    Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  57. Re:An alaskan perspective... by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Hey. I have views that would be considered liberal, but I understood what you said.

    Stop using false dichotomies.

    It's a shame if he committed those crimes, not a shame that he gets convicted. saying it's a shame he gets convicted implies you would rather he wasn't convicted.

    OTOH, you clearly listen to too much Rush.
    "extremist liberal "
    What the hell is that?

    "The Liberals are going to run wild for a time, unchecked"
    Wha? are you just stupid? I don't think so, but that statement makes no sense.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  58. Re:An alaskan perspective... by Dekortage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love that all the conservatives think I'm a liberal, and all the liberals think I'm conservative.

    Anyway, you wrote: "Our state certainly needs to rid itself of corruption. If Stevens is convicted it will be a sad day. What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good he has done that will be a crying shame. And entirely his fault. He should of course take the blame for his actions. But that doesn't change the fact that it will hurt the state MORE if he is convicted... the damage comes from the hurt this does to the Republican party in Alaska."

    I read you as follows:

    1. "Stevens might be convicted." I'm assuming you mean "convicted" in the traditional sense, as in "because he was guilty."
    2. "What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good." Following the above, it sounds like you're saying that if he is convicted, you are willing to overlook his lawbreaking (lying, accepting bribes, whatever it may be) because he has done great things, like bringing in lots of money and making all kinds of improvements.
    3. "He should take the blame for his actions." So if he is guilty, you think he needs to face up to it.
    4. "...it will hurt the state MORE if he is convicted..." So if he is guilty, it does not matter, because it's more important to keep him in office than apply laws to him. Otherwise it will hurt the Republican party badly.

    Do I have that right?

    If so, you are saying, in essence, that as long as he keeps the money [benefits, improvements, etc.] flowing, you are willing to overlook [forgive, sideline, ignore, etc.] lies and deception for the greater good of the Republican party [you]. Right?

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  59. Re:An alaskan perspective... by kabocox · · Score: 1

    What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good he has done that will be a crying shame.
    So, you're saying... as long as he keeps the money flowing to you, you are willing to overlook lies and deception? Do you think he's clean as a whistle in all his other dealings, too?

    Hypothetically... if I had my own private genie, devil, lobbyist, or politician, I wouldn't care squat what they did on their own time as long as they conned everyone else into giving me more resources for less effort.

  60. An Alaskan perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fuck y'all.

    No, seriously, fuckyouverymuch, kthnxbi.

    Reason:

    Everybody Outside (that's "not in Alaska", for those Outsiders) likes to yap about Ted "Tubes" Stevens and squawk about how corrupt Alaska is and how we build bridges to nowhere bridgetonowherebridgetonowherebridgetonowhereblahblahblahblahblah, and then lament how we can be so stupid as to keep electing him.

    Why do you think that happens?

    This is because 70% of the land of Alaska is locked up by the federal government. This is because we have unprecedented interference in our industries and development by the federal government. This is because everybody and their dog has an opinion about ANWR, when the simple truth is that it's as much the business of Outsiders what Alaskans do with ANWR as it is Alaskan's business what development plans are in New York, Los Angeles, or Texas.

    The simple truth is that Ted Stevens has been sent back repeatedly because he is effective at ensuring that Alaskans get overrun as little as possible by the Will of the People (who live SOMEWHERE ELSE), and that when they must bow to the Will of the People From Somewhere Else, that those peolpe pay mightily for the privilege. Ted Stevens has never pretended to have any other mission in the Senate, in fact.

    Incidentally: most of the charges in this case are bullshit, as anybody who thinks about it for a minute can tell you; in a state that is "sparsely populated", exactly how many choices of company do you have for things like home construction? Very few. Who benefits from legislation? Likewise very few people. There are not that many people in these circles; it's difficult to avoid "benefiting" one of them.

    The unvarnished truth: this is a political attack by Outside Democrats, designed to "take out" Ted Stevens, that has been ongoing for some time, pure and simple.

    1. Re:An Alaskan perspective by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Informative

      The simple truth is that Ted Stevens has been sent back repeatedly because he is effective at ensuring that Alaskans get overrun as little as possible by the Will of the People (who live SOMEWHERE ELSE), and that when they must bow to the Will of the People From Somewhere Else, that those peolpe pay mightily for the privilege. Ted Stevens has never pretended to have any other mission in the Senate, in fact.

      Dear old Ted has been an Alaskan senator for a long time, during which Federal control over Alaska has escalated. He's good at telling you he fights for Alaskan autonomy, not actually doing it.

      Incidentally: most of the charges in this case are bullshit, as anybody who thinks about it for a minute can tell you; in a state that is "sparsely populated", exactly how many choices of company do you have for things like home construction? Very few. Who benefits from legislation? Likewise very few people. There are not that many people in these circles; it's difficult to avoid "benefiting" one of them.

      The charges revolve around Ted getting tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of goods and services for free. Is that normal? Does that sound legal to you?

      Incidentally, I live in another state where people from the rest of the country are called "outsiders," and I've come to find that use of the term correlates very strongly to an inability to see things from other perspectives and think flexibly. The more you recognize that you live in a small part of a large continuum of geographical and cultural diversity, the less you'll fall into the sad trap of dividing the world into Us and Them.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:An Alaskan perspective by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      The unvarnished truth: this is a political attack by Outside Democrats

      Really? how may more purges of the justice department does Bush have to make before the evil democrats lose control of it?

      btw, your fear and hatred of the 'Outsiders' is worrying. Seek help.

    3. Re:An Alaskan perspective by Farnite · · Score: 0

      I'm glad to see you posted anon, for starters. Ted Stevens is one of the worst corrupt political figures in this country. Quite honestly, with the number of Federal laws he's broken in the past few years, he deserves to sit and rot in prison for the remainder of his life. Won't happen, of course, but it would if you, or I would have done the same thing. He may be your mascot against, "The Will of the People", but unless ya'll are not part of the United States any more, then he, and you, are still required to follow Federal laws. I would be VERY happy if the same investigations were started on every single politician in the US Government of any public office. Democrat or Republican. Ted Stevens is corrupt, and corrupt government officals should get jail time. I'm sorry that you think that you, and the rest of Alaksa, is better than the rest of the country, but I think I speak for the rest of us when I say F Off.

    4. Re:An Alaskan perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Collecting responses:

      > The charges revolve around Ted getting tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of goods and services for free. Is that normal? Does that sound legal to you?

      Don't care, to tell you the truth. When I see senators from places like Massachusetts (the "other Ted", you know, the one we never talk about - Big Dig, anyone?) getting nailed for $10k of "illegal favors" from their beneficiaries, then I'll start pushing Uncle Ted to get in line for a spanking. Not one second before.

      > Incidentally, I live in another state where people from the rest of the country are called "outsiders," and I've come to find that use of the term correlates very strongly to an inability to see things from other perspectives and think flexibly. The more you recognize that you live in a small part of a large continuum of geographical and cultural diversity, the less you'll fall into the sad trap of dividing the world into Us and Them.

      I don't care about your "perspective", asshole, and wouldn't even if I thought it were worth something, which I don't. You don't live here. That's the way it is, plain and simple. You don't live here. The inconveniences of Alaska are not yours to live with; neither, in justice, are the benefits. You do not have a right to vote on what goes on here, or on what Alaskans do with Alaska. You get to stay in *your place* and deal with *your* issues, *there*. Sadly, as our system currently works, you get to treat Alaska as your own personal park, more or less, and relegate the people who live here to second-class citizen status. Ted Stevens at least made sure it cost you something for the privilege.

      #2:
      > Really? how may more purges of the justice department does Bush have to make before the evil democrats lose control of it?

      Oh, it's not an "evil conspiracy". He probably actually did everything they said he did. However, there is such a thing as "selective enforcement of the law", which is mostly what I'm complaining about. There are other Senators many times as dirty as Ted Stevens, but none of *them* are getting nailed, or stand any reasonable chance of it in the near future.

      Like I said, when I see Chappaquiddick Ted, John McCain, Barbara Boxer, or anybody else being hauled before a federal grand jury for *their* crimes too, then I'll start cheering this on. Until then, it looks very much like another screwing for Alaska in the offing.

      > btw, your fear and hatred of the 'Outsiders' is worrying. Seek help.

      I do not "fear" Outsiders, nor do I especially hate them, but I do wish they'd mind their own fucking business once in awhile, and wish to make them pay ($$$, and lots of it) for the privilege of interfering in and drawing benefits from places they don't live or work.

      #3:

      > Quite honestly, with the number of Federal laws he's broken in the past few years,

      "allegedly"

      > he deserves to sit and rot in prison for the remainder of his life.

      Perhaps.

      "Not all who deserve Federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison get it. Not all who get Federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison deserve it. Can you give them back their ass-virginity? Then do not be so quick to hand out Federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison as punishment..."

      > Won't happen, of course, but it would if you, or I would have done the same thing. He may be your mascot against, "The Will of the People", but unless ya'll are not part of the United States any more

      Oh, I can only hope.

      > I would be VERY happy if the same investigations were started on every single politician in the US Government of any public office. Democrat or Republican.

      Is that so very much to ask?

      > Ted Stevens is corrupt, and corrupt government officals should get jail time.

      Since government officials are by definition corrupt, this means "all of them", and I agree.

      > I'm sorry that you think that you, and the rest of Alaksa, is better than the rest of the country, but I think I speak for the rest of us when I s

    5. Re:An Alaskan perspective by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      The simple truth is that Ted Stevens has been sent back repeatedly because he is effective at ensuring that Alaskans get overrun as little as possible... Ted Stevens has never pretended to have any other mission in the Senate, in fact.

      What about this whole net neutrality thing? Do they have a lot of internets in Alaska and does their not being neutral improve the lot of the average Alaskan?

    6. Re:An Alaskan perspective by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      This is because everybody and their dog has an opinion about ANWR, when the simple truth is that it's as much the business of Outsiders what Alaskans do with ANWR as it is Alaskan's business what development plans are in New York, Los Angeles, or Texas.

      First, ANWR stands for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Note the 'National'. It is as much my business about what happens in ANWR as what happens in Yosemite or the Everglades (National Park). It belongs to all the people of the U.S., not just the people whose state the land is in. You have as much say in the Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge as people in NY do.

      Second, about the indictment being a 'political attack': Stevens either paid for his house reconstruction or he didn't. If he did not, then he either knew about it or not. I'd guess that he didn't pay for it but is too out of touch to know much about it one way or the other. The former CEO of VECO plead guilty to bribery charges, for heavens sake. But, I find it very hard for a Justice Department run by Republicans for the last ~8 years to indict a Republican Senator without a really good reason, and that reason is not political attack.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  61. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    +5, Funny

  62. Did anyone else see the irony by sorak · · Score: 1

    Of the man who said the Internet is a series of tubes, being indicted for making false statements?

  63. Next logical step by zapwow · · Score: 1

    If we are willing to INDICT for making false claims about tubes, we should IMPEACH for making false claims about WMDs.

    1. Re:Next logical step by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      absoluty! which democrats that are still around from Clinton's administration do you want to start with?

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    2. Re:Next logical step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. This isn't about the tubes.

  64. The Difference is SCOPE. by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

    and maybe severity.

  65. Uh-oh, "hypocrisy" by mi · · Score: 4, Funny

    There is nothing particularly hypocritical in denouncing, what you think is an awful idea, while milking it for as long as it is forced upon you anyway.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Uh-oh, "hypocrisy" by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me?

      On one hand, decrying the welfare system, while on the other hand, reaping the benefits of the welfare system?

      Professing to hate the welfare system while liking it enough to take advantage of it? That is a textbook example of hypocrisy. Real conviction of belief that the welfare system is wrong would preclude taking advantage of the welfare system.

      I get the feeling you don't understand what hypocrisy is.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Uh-oh, "hypocrisy" by mi · · Score: 1

      Professing to hate the welfare system while liking it enough to take advantage of it?

      Using and liking are different things. "This sucks, but we'll use it as long as it is forced upon us," — is honest. Keeping quiet as long as you benefit is not.

      Real conviction of belief that the welfare system is wrong would preclude taking advantage of the welfare system.

      Only if it were reasonable to believe, that refusal to use it would mean a quick abolition of it. No such hope, though...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Uh-oh, "hypocrisy" by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Using and liking are different things. "This sucks, but we'll use it as long as it is forced upon us," -- is honest.

      Admission of hypocrisy does not absolve one of hypocrisy.

      Really, honesty about one's lack of adherence to principles does not mean that one is suddenly principled. It just means that one is honest.

      In short, someone can be honest about what they're doing while still doing the wrong thing.

      If I am honest and tell everyone that I stole from you, because I don't think it's right that you have more money than me, does that mean that stealing from you is the right and honest thing to do?

      No.

      Also, I'd like to make it clear that no one is forcing those red state beneficiaries to receive funds in excess of what they pay to the federal government. They could help fix the system by refusing the funds... then they are not participating in the redistribution of wealth, which reduces the extent of the redistribution, which is exactly what they claim to want. Instead, they increase wealth redistribution by taking money from the wealthy states, in direct contradiction of what they claim to want.

      It's cut-and-dried hypocrisy, they are working to extend the system that they claim to hate.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Uh-oh, "hypocrisy" by mi · · Score: 1

      someone can be honest about what they're doing while still doing the wrong thing.

      The "wrong thing" here is not using the bad system, which is what Republicans do, but continuing to impose the bad system which is what Republicans are opposing.

      There is nothing "hypocritical" in what they are doing.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  66. Re:An alaskan perspective... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    Ted Stevens MIGHT be convicted. Until then he is innocent until proven guilty.

    No, he is entitled to be treated by the legal system as if innocent until proven guilty (and even that is really just a loose way of saying he is entitled not be subjected to criminal punishment until and unless he is convicted.) He is not factually innocent until proven guilty, nor are individual citizens legally or morally obligated not to express their opinions about his guilt or innocence or the severity of the offenses they believe he has committed unless he is convicted.

  67. Can we blame him? by Capmaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can we really blame him for losing some financial information? I mean it's not his fault when that information gets lost along with the internet sent by his staff.

  68. Rich people don't do real prison time by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If he ever serves a day in prison (unlikely), it will be in some minimum security prison where the only rape is to the taxpayers who have to pay the cable bill. Rich Republicans never pay for crimes they commit. Even when it looks like they might, they just find some slick way out of it (like Ken Lay, who killed himself so his wife and family could keep every dime of his stolen money).

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Rich people don't do real prison time by NetNed · · Score: 1

      Yea Democrats would never do that! They would go to anal rape prison because it's their civic duty.

      Anal rape and duty in the same sentence? That's got to be a first!

    2. Re:Rich people don't do real prison time by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia article says he likely died of a heart attack due to coronary artery disease. Where did you hear he killed himself?

    3. Re:Rich people don't do real prison time by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      That was the coroner's finding. But heart attacks can be induced if you've got the right money to buy the right chemicals (even a simple potassium chloride injection will do the trick and leave little or no trace behind). And the timing (right before he was penalized, which would have opened up his family to civil liability), is WAY too coincidental for a reasonable person to believe it was just a happy coincidence.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  69. Re:An alaskan perspective... by afidel · · Score: 1

    Dude, they STILL haven't upgraded the entire fleet to double hull designs which was known to be a necessary precaution back in the 1950's! They also still routinely flare off gas instead of capturing it and either processing it or returning it to the wells. The oil companies ain't anywhere near green.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  70. Re:An alaskan perspective... by afidel · · Score: 1

    Uh, theft in office or graft are among the most serious of crimes in a republic as they erode the foundation of good government. Anyone who doesn't think so is simply an idiot too blinded by their own greed to think of what's best for society. I don't care what side of the aisle you are on, if you are a dirty politician I want you out of office and into a jail cell asap.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  71. That's presuming Ken Lay is even dead. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    (like Ken Lay, who killed himself so his wife and family could keep every dime of his stolen money).

    That's called an Aspen Pardon. Take one for the family, and they become untouchable.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  72. Damn! by dfjunior · · Score: 1

    If only there were a word for "schadenfreude"

  73. You fail to realize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alaska is the RICHEST State in the Union. We actually send out checks to our residents, and have our shit together. Before you accuse our senior senator of being corrupt, do your homework.

    Just because there is corruption in office, doesn't mean that person didn't help our state. Ted has fought tooth and nail against people who look at Alaska much like you all do - a wasteland.

    Maybe we should stop pumping oil, watch your fuel prices rise, and read on slashdot how you guys are jumping out of windows.

    There is a method to the madness.

    1. Re:You fail to realize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. We all agree Alaska is beautiful country and nothing but the highest regard for its majesty

      2. Even if he did help one of our states, Ted Stevens can go fuck himself

      3. You can go fuck yourself

      -- us guys

  74. Slashtards Strike Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can bet the leftist liberals in Slashtard Moderation will surely pound this home simply because the subject of the story is a Republican.

        You can bet on this as surely as the sun will rise tommorrow and Democrats are cowards plain and simple.

    Congrats Slashtard.Dick youv'e once again proven your bias and you dont know fucking shit about shit!

    Cant wait for your "Up Close and Personal With the Next Mesiah, Obama" expose, fucking wads

  75. Indictment Kicks Him Out of Committee Chairs by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Senate's rules require that Stevens immediately give up his committee chairs or "ranking member" status that gives him privileges in controlling most Senate business:

    Per Republican Senate caucus rules, if a member is indicted, he or she can no longer serve as chairman or ranking member of a committee.

    Stevens is a ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

    Indictments should be a lot more common for that gang of crooks.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  76. I May Be A Conservative by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I may be a conservative, but after watching in disgust when he made his impassioned plea to save his Bridge to Nowhere from the Ax of Excess, and how he'd have to leave the Senate if that piece of governmental waste was cancelled, I was shouting at the TV: "DO IT! DO IT! PLEASE DO IT! GET HIM OUT OF THERE NOW!"

    Unfortunately they bowed to his threat at the time.

    If the Democrats were as hard on their elected politicians as I was on this one, we could have a much better Congress than we have now. Having someone as a member of your own party doesn't make them wonderful. Sometimes they're just embarassing.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  77. Why is this slashdot relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fail to see why this turned up on /.

    Were the statements falsified by SQL injection?
    Did he even use a computer?
    If so, did it run Linux?
    Does he run Linux?
    Any genetics involved?
    Chemestry?
    Quantum physics?
    Data-carrying signal bounced off Jupiter?
    Anything?

    Apart from his "tubes" analogy of the Internet, which is quite easy to make fun of (cheap shot, really), I don't see any relevance to this forum.

  78. Re:An alaskan perspective... by BryanL · · Score: 1

    And this, my friends, is how crooks get re-elected to office.

  79. $10,000 Gift Limit? WTF? by hellwig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most government employees have to report a gift of any size. A company I used to work for had a change-box next to the fridge with the soda's, but no body ever put any money in. I asked about that one day and they said the box was for their government customers who aren't allowed to accept anything of value, even a simple can of soda (so they paid for it instead).

    If I recall there was a governor that was visiting with Edwards (back when he was still running for president) who had to turn down breakfast or coffee or something because he wasn't allowed to accept gifts. Now there was a man with some freaking ethics.

    I've always known Senators and Representatives are corrupt (voting themselves a 15% pay raise when the rest of the country can't afford to fill up their gas tanks), but not having to report $10,000 gifts?

    --
    Eggs
    Milk
    Bread
    Cat Litter
    Soda
    ...
  80. Hopefully they'll hurry! by sudnshok · · Score: 1

    ...so they can convict him before GW is out of office so he can get pardoned.

    --
    People who say "money does not buy happiness" are just people without money trying to make themselves feel better.
  81. Re:An alaskan perspective... by SgtAaron · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit dumbfounded by this. What on earth could be sad about kicking out a senator that has been proven corrupt?

    Uhm, oh I don't know... maybe the part about him being corrupt?

    Is this a trick question?

    Sorry, but the rest of your comments did not lead me to believe you were sad he risks being convicted due to corruption, but rather you were sad Alaska would lose a powerful Senator. Really, you've complained about others' reading comprehension, but when I re-read your comments it looks to me like you didn't exactly explain yourself very well. It would seem most responders are thinking the same.

    But your comments about "extreme liberals" shows a bend towards extremism yourself. You don't really give a shit who's in office as long as they are for 100% resource exploitation. Would you care to see beautiful Alaska after a hundred years of that? There must be some checks, somewhere, regardless of which "party" you belong.

    And, personally, I'm damned sick and tired of Limbaugh-lemmings! Not everybody who is concerned about the environment and how we take care of the planet for our ancestors is a crazy person. I've worked on environmental cleanup jobs--the result of mining gone amok. You'd be one of those, concerned only for his immediate profit? Sure, mine all the gold and oil without care of concern for shit except how big a house and car you can obtain? Please

    -Aaron

  82. Here's hoping it pushes Alaska over the edge by shma · · Score: 2, Funny

    Stevens is one of the half dozen or so Republican senators in danger of losing his seat in the 2008 election. Nothing would be more satisfying than to see him get thrown out of the senate and straight into prison. There's also an added bonus: If he loses his seat, then there's no political reason for the Republicans to try and help with his defence.

    --
    I came here for a good argument
  83. Intro To Ted Stevens a la the Daily Show by mergy · · Score: 1
    Very informative video on the amazing life and courage of Ted Stevens

    http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=129216

  84. Re:An alaskan perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey fucktarded communist piece of shit, your fucking days are numbered where you will be tried, convicted, and executed for high treason against America.

    -The Living Fractal (162153)

  85. Regulating politicians by mi · · Score: 1

    What you don't understand with our flawed system is that their is no accountability as the only people who regulate politicians...our [are? -mi] politicians.

    The only alternative regulators can be either a king or a deity. The former means totalitarianism and the latter — "encroachment of religion upon government". Make your pick.

    Pitting politicians against other politicians may be "flawed", but it is the best known solution... Not that their believe in deities is bad — I just wish there was more of that.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Regulating politicians by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The nice thing about a monarch is that you are allowed to chop their head off if they overstep what the people regard as reasonable behaviour. It's much harder to do this with people you voted for.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  86. Re:Another criminal in gov't by Larryish · · Score: 0

    Responding to an anonymous troll is not good for karma, but mine sucks anyway so screw it.

    I bought America Deceived off Amazon for less than 10 bucks, shipped. Banned? I don't know about that. [Citation needed.]

    It might be more accurate to say that the publisher didn't put out mny copies, and those who have a copy are holding onto it. I know I'm not letting go of my copy, it is an interesting book.

    As an aside, the book is pretty good. The writing style was sort of odd but not necessarily bad, just different. It took maybe an hour to read the whole thing.

    The book is couched in fiction but hits pretty close to home in quite a few areas. If you take "human energy" and accept it as a metaphor for the work that we, as people, do in our daily lives, the whole thing is spot-on.

  87. Yeah, and what happened with that one? by notdotcom.com · · Score: 1

    You chose such a fine example for your arguement; Nixon. Gee, how would we have gotten along without him, watergate, vietnam?

    Tricky Dick FTL!

    --
    Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
    1. Re:Yeah, and what happened with that one? by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 0, Troll

      JFK got us into vietnam. Don't be blaming the guy who had to clean up the mess.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    2. Re:Yeah, and what happened with that one? by megaditto · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's the problem with most of our citizens being educated by the liberal media.

      Vietnam casualties: Under Kennedy and LBJ (Democrats): 32,000+
      Under Nixon and Ford (Republicans): 16,000+
      source: http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

      Vietnam: started on a lie by a democrat. Used conscripted (forced) Americans to fight a losing war.
      Vietnam: ended by a Republican (Ford), de-escalated by a Republican (Nixon), conscription stopped by a Republican (Nixon).

      Nixon did a lot of great things for this country (which the media stonewalls to the day).
      What's even more sad is that Nixon is probably the most honest president we had since the mid-20th century.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    3. Re:Yeah, and what happened with that one? by megaditto · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I think I should point out exactly what Nixon did for the country (since you are not likely to know it otherwise):
      1) school de-segregation: the bulk done under Nixon
      2) put an end to permanent Moon base plans, switched NASA to Earth orbit projects (sattelites, space labs, shuttle, etc.)
      3) normalized relations with China, Egypt, and a number of other countries that isolated the Soviets and curbed their ambitions, without any military actions
      4) adopted a number of arms control agreements with the Soviets (nuclear reductions, ABM treaties, etc.), all while reducing tensions through diplomatic and economic means
      5) created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
      6) started NOAA
      7) created Occupational Safety and Health Administration
      6) re-indexed Social Security for inflation, implemented disability payments
      7) eradicated the gold standard (end of Bretton Woods), giving America a massive "credit card" that other nations pay instead of us, with THEIR currency inflation.
      8) pushed for Comprehensive Health Insurance Act (which the dems went batshit-crazy over, and killed).
      9) saved Israel during Yom Kippur by providing arms airlift (as CiC, in opposition to the Dems). The arms supplied stopped the Arab advance; the anti-AA armaments that wiped out Sovied-supplied AA batteries that were establishing air supperiority, basically winning the war for the Arabs up to that point Nixon came in.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    4. Re:Yeah, and what happened with that one? by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      JFK got us into vietnam.

      Actually, the Vietnam War began during the Eisenhower administration, but thanks for playing anyway. As a parting gift, here is a link from Wikipedia.

      --
      I feel like death on a soda cracker.
    5. Re:Yeah, and what happened with that one? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Vietnam? You mean how he got us out of it?

      And some of the criminals who perpetrated Watergate Claim they were gathering evidence to break up a prostitution ring. Then of course there is the entire ball being dropped and Nixon never being prosecuted or impeached or actually charged with anything. It leaves a little Grey area that is more speculation then fact but still considered to be somewhat true.

    6. Re:Yeah, and what happened with that one? by syn3rg · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the link you posted, the Vietnam war did indeed begin "during the Eisenhower administration", but it was LBJ that got us into the war: (from the 3rd paragraph: "The United States entered the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam (as part of a wider strategy of containment during the Cold War), beginning with military advisory missions in the early 1960s and escalating to full warfare with the deployment of combat units from 1965 onward. By 1973, almost all U.S. troops had left the theater and in 1975, communist forces assumed control of South Vietnam. North and South Vietnam were reunified shortly thereafter.")

      --
      The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
    7. Re:Yeah, and what happened with that one? by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      You might want to check your history, friend. JFK/LBJ got America into Vietnam; Nixon got you out. Nixon opened the door to Red China. Nixon began the "detente" process with the USSR, and concluded the SALT 1 treaty. He had some significant foreign policy achievements that the saxophone player never came close to.

      That said, Nixon had deep, serious flaws. Never mind Watergate; Agnew was taking cash bribes sitting in the VP's office. For Nixon to choose someone like that as his running mate shows a serious lack of judgement. But let's not throw inaccurate slurs at him as well.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
  88. Senator Fun Statements by Snufu · · Score: 0

    ...for making false statements on his financial disclosure forms.

    "It's not a dirty slush fund. It's a series of tubes. May I go now?"

  89. Official Press Statement from Stevens by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

    I have proudly served this nation and Alaska for over 50 years. My public service began when I served in World War II. It saddens me to learn that these charges have been brought against me. I have never knowingly submitted a false disclosure form required by law as a U.S. Senator.


    In accordance with Senate Republican Conference rules, I have temporarily relinquished my vice-chairmanship and ranking positions until I am absolved of these charges.


    The impact of these charges on my family disturbs me greatly.


    I am innocent of these charges and intend to prove that.

    1. Re:Official Press Statement from Stevens by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      Heh. Kinda sounds like Hans Reiser's initial statement.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
  90. Re:An alaskan perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    treason.

    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

  91. So which is it? by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

    Usually things like this are one of two things:

    1) A congressman that has met his own 'term limit' (since we can't seem to get them to pass that) or

    2) A wild accusation puffed up by the media?

    Recall that one Republican was removed from office because he told a very, very old congressman "You woulda been the right guy in power all your (90=something years) and he wasn't doing anything illegal.

    Another was drummed out because he seemed to be having a homosexual affair, something the Liberals/Democrats are trying to get people to embrace in the first place.

    Yet another congressman had something like $90,000 cash in his fridge that he tried to get the National Guard to remove during Katrina. He's on charges the last I heard, despite casting votes and kissing babies.

    Guess which one was a Democrat?

    And let's not forget: every media channel other than Fox News is voting Democratic, and has shown this bias in the recent volunteering of a trip with O'Bama while ignoring every trip Mc Cain has ever taken. These are the people who were painting the picture of Karl Rove Frog-marching in prison-Orange for a leak a Liberal reporter broke, not Scooter Libby. (This was known within 2 weeks, yet we dealt with the media show for about two YEARS until it ran out of steam.)

    I'm in favor of tossing actually-corrupt elected officials of ANY stripe. And I'm no fan of ANY working there as long as Hugh Hefner has worked at Playboy. But if this is another media-kill, I"m once again pissed.

    And while I've brought up the subject, have you called your representative about a term limit law?

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    1. Re:So which is it? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      "And while I've brought up the subject, have you called your representative about a term limit law?"

          If you want term-limits, contacting your representative is not a useful way to go about getting them. If the people really want term limits, it needs to be a Constitutional amendment, brought by the legislatures of the States, and not from within Congress itself - representatives will never vote themselves term limits.

      "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments , which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"

          So, I suppose you might be right that people should contact a 'representative', but it should be your state legislature representative, not your US Rep or Senator.

  92. We'll see if being 84 springs him by smchris · · Score: 1

    My grandfather bounced off a car and kept driving when he was 91. At his license revocation hearing, he was frankly honest in sharing his feelings with the judge and earned a weekend in the county jail. Sort of embarrassing since his nephew was the recently retired chief of police.

  93. Looking at this topic and it's comments by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

    ... and is it me, or is it almost entirely a hate-inspired circle jerk? It really sickens me to be honest.

  94. Re:An alaskan perspective... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Not mine; mine needs MORE corruption, so we can get rid of state taxes and have the rest of the nation pay our way like yours does.

    More federal taxes are collected from Alaska than paid back to Alaska. The residents of Alaska pay taxes in oil they own that is extracted, reducing the wealth of residents every year. The sale of that oil pays for the government, so taxes aren't needed. It isn't the feds bankrolling the state.

  95. And his action was "the series of tubes" quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why do you have a problem?

  96. Stevens is toad by chyllaxyn · · Score: 0

    Stevens is toad , glad he got caught. Wonder if slash would have posted the story if it had been a dem? not/.

  97. ted is pork. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    this is a senator who has served for over half a decade in office. is anyone in alaska still awake/alive? one might even question if alaska still exists at all?! im guessing he still got the money for "berry research" in alaska...ill wait in excitement till i get to buy the first box of alaskan strawberries. imho: worst. senator. ever.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  98. foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like when you made the greatest decision of your life: being born to parents that set you up with that fat trust fund, all the contacts you'll ever need, and a lawyer to handle the results of whatever vice(s) you may indulge in...

    Great decision, I don't know why more people don't go that route.

  99. Hopefully Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I certainly hope they extricate him from congress. The pork-barreling he's been wracking on our country and our budget is shameless and atrocious. Even as a conservative, I've been wanting him to jump off that Bridge To Nowhere for the longest time.

    This is also why some of those promised reforms like Campaign Finance reform are bad ideas. It's not the money in and of itself, it's how it's being used. Blocking how much people can give to candidates, blocking speach because an election is coming up, those aren't problems if they're in crystal-clear view that anyone can take a look at, and can voice their opinions for or against. The real problems are the uncredited, in-kind contributions that congressmen give to one another via pork. As incumbants, they can stuff little projects for the people at home, then go and tell their constituents what a great politician they are, and vote for them if they want more of those 'free' goodies they 'fought' for. Challengers obviously don't have that kind of capability, and in the end it hurts us in the way of wasted money for REAL special interests, becomes a corrupting influence on those supposibly working for us, and further entrenches the incumbancy.

    Throw the bums out, both parties.. I'd prefer a few of them go from chambers to cell, but stop them from sucking the life out of the US.

  100. Cynicism by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    Just because you've bought into the whole "cheap cynicism is cool" BS

    "The power of accurate observation is often called 'cynicism' by those who do not have it." (attributed to George Bernard Shaw)

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  101. Did slashdot ever cover this story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A congressman under investigation for bribery was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer.

    At one audiotaped meeting, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., chuckles about writing in code to keep secret what the government contends was his corrupt role in getting his children a cut of a communications company's deal for work in Africa."

    From: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8HOCUJ81&show_article=1

    - Didn't think so.

  102. Ok so lied about the money he has. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, where did the money come from and was it given to him. I would like more answers then this person was untruthful about reporting the money he has. Was the money a bribe for policies, a bribe to give out government contracts to one company, or a bribe for something else? Did he just not want to pay his taxes or was there some other reason he was being untruthful about his money. What a sad state our news is in.

  103. Re:An alaskan perspective... by Blackhalo · · Score: 1

    Ooh nice. Mod points as usual, never around when you would like to use them. It would be kind of cool to have one daily mod point available, rather than the sporadic five. Popunders BTW, I do not seem to get if Firefox.

    --
    "There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
  104. Teddy Bear by garebear · · Score: 1

    I have a cousin named Ted. He is good. You know, there is just something about that name that makes people innocent.

  105. You job is write instructorbook Korean VCR? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
    Hmmm.

    Please explain how job description also assures ignorance.

    Should be article in sentence somewhere.

    What proof do you have that a given career equates to being able to automatically assume someone's cluefulness level about a give subject?

    Even if you insert "having" before "a given career", it's ambiguous as to exactly whose career you mean. And that should be "given", not "give".

    You mean, after he reads the radioactive waste YOU post?

    At least I confine myself to using words that actually exist.

    If I post total shit, then what's the rest of Slashdot?

    False dichotomy. Logically, your posts being shit and the rest of slashdot being shit are not mutually exclusive. Empirically, both appear to be true. Epigrammatically, 90% of anything is shit.

    I've gotten compliments on what I've written before

    5th grade doesn't count, no matter how many years you spent in it.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    1. Re:You job is write instructorbook Korean VCR? by Buran · · Score: 1

      Ah, a troll. I'm not going to waste my time on you and your bullshit assumptions and need to be smugly superior.