Slashdot Mirror
Ted Stevens and Sean O'Keefe In Plane Crash
necro81 writes "The NY Times is reporting that former Senator Ted Stevens was aboard a small plane with eight others that crashed in remote southwest Alaska Monday night. Some news outlets are reporting that he died, along with at least four others. Meanwhile, the North American CEO of aerospace firm EADS and former NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe was was also reported in the crash. Rescue crews from the Alaska Air National Guard reached the site about ten hours after the initial crash."
Because you don't know any Alaska history.
Ted was pretty influential in getting the Eisenhower Administration to go along with Alaska Statehood, oh and Ted astroturfed Ike's press conferences with questions about Alaska's statehood too.
Sad day because he was the driving force in the only truly fair compensation program for American Indians/Alaska Natives in the history of the United States. 44 million acres and 15 billion dollars.
And he pushed the Alaska Pipeline, Denali Commission, Magnuson-Stevens Act, voted against the impeachment of President Clinton.
So why do you think death served him right?
I guess this says a lot about me, but I'm afraid it says even more about the overall state of our country.
Not really. Business owners are the same as they have always been, there are a few bad ones but a lot of decent executives simply trying to make the company work better.
Basically you have been brainwashed into thinking any executive is evil, even though you never heard the name of a single company. You have started to wake up, think long and hard about why your first thought was that it was good any given company executive should perish. You can change your preconceptions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Slashdot is a very strange place. I don't know how half of the shit here works, either.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Much more interesting (to me) is that the aircraft used (a DeHavilland DHC-3T) is a flying boat built in 1953. Looks great for fishing trips, but they were taking it through dangerous mountains - known for doing unmentionable things to aircraft - during a severe storm. Hands up all those who would want to be in the aircraft shown in the posting under those kinds of conditions. I feel certain that former Sen. Stevens has been in enough light aircraft (Alaska is big and the roads aren't) to know what you can and cannot do. What I cannot fathom is why he, with his knowledge and experience, would take that kind of a pointless, stupid risk.
As for O'Keefe, for all his time at NASA, I doubt he's enough time in aircraft of this vintage and size to know the risks. Being head honcho of an aerospace organization doesn't endow you with the kind of skill and knowledge needed. Nonetheless, he too should have been wary of flying in those conditions in an antique.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I guess this says a lot about me, but I'm afraid it says even more about the overall state of our country.
Actually, the two are probably fairly tightly correlated. We all like to think of ourselves as independent individuals (especially in the US), but culture is very much tied to the tenor of the individual, and the individual is very much tied to the tenor of the culture.
The guy was a WWII pilot? Knowing that, I could care less about his politics and anything else he has done. The man bravely served his country, and for this he deserves some respect. While I'm not surprised, it is pretty appalling to read some of these responses. I would prefer to maintain the life of one single WWII pilot over the entire collection of everyday assholes found in this thread.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Heh really? You don't understand why? Because once they are dead, they can do nothing. All the people who supported the guy are now on 'your side', even if just for a moment, and the dead guy himself can't stand in your way. Just like how all the Republicans honor Reagan while pushing an agenda that doesn't look anything like what Reagan would have done. You can say anything you want, and he can't object. It's the perfect opportunity for demagoguery.
Plus it's poor style to kick a man when he's down. You don't get much downer than dead.
Qxe4
Much more interesting (to me) is that the aircraft used (a DeHavilland DHC-3T) is a flying boat built in 1953. Looks great for fishing trips, but they were taking it through dangerous mountains - known for doing unmentionable things to aircraft - during a severe storm. Hands up all those who would want to be in the aircraft shown in the posting under those kinds of conditions.
I would prefer not to be flying any aircraft in those conditions, but if one must be chosen, a DHC-3 isn't bad. A DHC-6 would be better, thanks to the spare engine, but they have nearly identical performance and the DHC-6 is known as one of the best aircraft in the world in severe conditions. When things are too dangerous for the type of plane that you're implying would be safer (I assume you mean big fancy jets), they turn to Twin Otters. They operate in Antarctica, for instance.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
so, you were this kind when Bush killed Saddam Hussein?
It is American custom to regret needless death, even if you don't agree with, or like, the victims.
... as long as they're famous and/or rich. Otherwise, whatever.
That's not true. Non-famous rich people don't get that treatment.
Furthermore, the famous people being overly honored is a function more of how many people have heard of famous people than celebrity worship. If a non-famous co-worker dies, we eulogize them. It's not national news for obvious reasons.
Not to defend American culture on slashdot or anything that would risk making me stand out from the cool kids, but I think this also goes on pretty much everywhere. People's natural tenancy is to honor the dead and remember them fondly. Famous people are by definition people that a lot of people know about, so when they die, of course there's more people doing that.
Aside from a few universally hated people like Hitler, we have a tendency to focus on the good in people when they die. ...
Actually one of the biggest eye-opening shocks of my life was in the 70's when I was an American student in Germany living with a German family. They were quite adamant that Hitler had done Germany a lot of good throughout much of of his tenure as their leader.
Remember these were people who had lived through the economic nightmare there after WW-I, then the 30's and 40's. They said Hitler had brought them out of the economic mess, put food on their table, made jobs available etc. etc. And all that is true for the most part.
We tend to focus on the seriously bad things he did... like I said it was a massive shock to me at that time, having been taught only a subset of the entire set of historical events.
Do NOT view this as me agreeing with their viewpoint, merely pointing out that it existed, and in some sad forms still exists.
Stupidity... has a habit of getting its way.
And don't forget the undisputed fact that he did receive unreported income from a political supporter. The only things disputed are whether the income influenced (or was given to influence) Ted Steven's votes and whether he was aware that there was a funneling of money to him, as he didn't report it correctly on disclosure forms or IRS forms and such. But there was nobody that I saw (aside from some entertainers who run talk shows or opinion pieces on TV who people confuse with news reporters) that actually claimed that he wasn't given funds improperly. Not his own people, and not those that gave it to him.
I think he was purposefully railroaded. I originally thought they were going to push it through for a quick acquittal before the election, then found out that they convicted him, so I thought he was being railroaded to get him out, then he got the verdict set aside the next time it went in front of a judge. It was improper on many levels, so why was it done that way, and what political pressure was laid to get that outcome? I don't know enough about the details to figure it out, and it completely disappeared from interest when one of the most powerful men in the country was ousted in a few short weeks from an improper court action. He'd never have been voted out if the verdict was set aside before the election or the conviction after, so there was some specific timing to the actions. But why and who wanted that is beyond me. But to claim that so much was done against one of the most powerful people in the country without any reason behind it at all seems a little silly.
Learn to love Alaska