Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Tubes" Senator Being Investigated For Corruption

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the cozy-relationships dept.

United States 613

DragonTHC writes "Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, is being investigated in a federal corruption probe that has implicated his son Ben. Part of the case involves a fishing co-op whose members allegedly paid Ben Stevens $500,000 to get a federal bailout from his father." The other Alaskan senator, also a Republican, is under a cloud as well.

cancel ×

613 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

STICK IT TO THEM! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19873807)

STICK IT TO THEM!!!!

Prison is not something you just dump on... (1)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873845)

We would have heard of this earlier but it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.

This will end well.. (1, Troll)

Daychilde (744181) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873811)

"also a Republican,"

Well, I foresee this ending well... heh.

Re:This will end well.. (1)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874153)

Maybe we should look into David Vitter.

Louisiana corruption runs awful deep - especially among diaper-wearing legislators.

Here's an interesting post about Mr. Vitter [wonkette.com] that he seems to wish he could hide.

Louisiana politics won't be rid of it's ghosts until the Metairie racialists are flushed from the experience.

Re:This will end well.. (3, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874321)

If I had to choose between a Senator who hires prostitutes or one who was elected by dead people, I'd choose the former. But then again, as a libertarian I don't see a problem w/ prostitution, I guess... :P

Re:This will end well.. (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874397)

I don't get it either. If he enjoys inviting a few prostitutes and throw parties that rivals Roman orgies, who cares? If he wants to be my hero, he'll make it available on pay-TV and let the revenue go to the state's money box.

You won't find me in the libertarian corner, though. Still, what he does in his spare time is his business, not mine. I don't care about a politicians personal preferences. I care about his actions towards and for the country.

Re:This will end well.. (5, Insightful)

stony3k (709718) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874427)

What matters is not really his personal life, but that he was a hypocrite. On one hand he visited prostitutes and on the other, he championed the cause of many "family"-oriented laws. It shows him as a basically dishonest person, and that's what bothers people (including me).

Re:This will end well.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874477)

"If I had to choose between a Senator who hires prostitutes or one who was elected by dead people, I'd choose the former."

I choose the latter. I will be dead one day, and I would like someone to represent me.

Personally, I find your lack of sensitivity towards the special needs of the metabolically interrupted people... Disturbing.

Re:This will end well.. (1, Redundant)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874667)

Oh come on mods. That's funny!

There goes his career, (5, Funny)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873821)

right down the tubes!

Re:There goes his career, (4, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874021)

right down the tubes!

Could have been avoided if his mother had tied her tubes earlier.

Re:There goes his career, (0, Redundant)

Daychilde (744181) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874615)

I just want to point out the obvious -- that both of those puns are tubular. Zing! ;-)

Re:There goes his career, (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874557)

Could have been avoided if he'd just become a truck driver instead. This wouldn't have happened if he were driving a big truck that you can just dump stuff on.

Shock horror (5, Insightful)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873829)

A politician, corrupt. - I am flabergasted.

The only unbelievable thing about this is the number of people who will claim that "this politician can't have done anything wrong, he is a good man", despite the fact he *is* a politician.

Re:Shock horror (4, Interesting)

hedgemage (934558) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873933)

Corrupt politics in Alaska? You don't say. Anyone who has ever had to live and work in Alaska can tell you that political corruption is inevitable since you have so many natural resources, so few people, and so much money to be made.

Re:Shock horror (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873967)

The only unbelievable thing about this is the number of people who will claim that "this politician can't have done anything wrong, he is a good man", despite the fact he *is* a politician.
As opposed to the people who heard the 'series of tubes' gaffe and will argue that he's too STUPID to actually be corrupt. ;)

Re:Shock horror (1)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874013)

The only unbelievable thing about this is the number of people who will claim that "this politician can't have done anything wrong, he is a good man", despite the fact he *is* a politician.
As opposed to the people who heard the 'series of tubes' gaffe and will argue that he's too STUPID to actually be corrupt. ;)
I don't know, having RTA I see that he has been in power for a long time. He must be pretty smart to have been corrupt and in office that long.

Re:Shock horror (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874407)

Oh, it helps if the people who vote for you don't care, as long as you use big words, have a winning smile and kiss baby butts.

Re:Shock horror (1)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874467)

To me the act of presenting himself in that manner and not dropping the act is smart (obvious to me but still smart to actually do, many politicians can't do it that well) - if of course, his self presentation is a consious act.

Re:Shock horror (1)

dnwq (910646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874163)

Nonetheless... investigation, not conviction. [/pedant]. I couldn't care less - not my government.

Re:Shock horror (1)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874377)

Of course, my mock outrage was at the suggestion that a politician was not perfect and the usual unfathomable reaction from their supporters who confuse 'good'/polite/familiar person with 'definitely uncorruptable' because I see bribery and corruption as being something that would be difficult for most people to resist for that period of time, especially when dealing with such rich and powerful entities. Just remember everyone has their 'price' and there are companies and individuals who are more than willing to work on those that they have to.

$500,000 (1)

anduz (1027854) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873833)

Buys a series of big trucks!

Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (5, Insightful)

fishyfool (854019) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873839)

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

Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (5, Informative)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873919)

This story broke six weeks ago [tpmmuckraker.com] (I wrote up a great story submission that got rejected). Senator Stevens and a group of unnamed "friends" from a local oil company involved in bribery schemes got together one weekend to renovate the senator's house as a weekend project. They were going to lift the first floor off its foundation, build a new first floor, and drop the old first floor back on top as a second floor. Unfortunately they screwed it up somehow (imagine) and they had to bring in a local contractor; that's where the trail started on that one.

Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (0, Troll)

fishyfool (854019) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874037)

Will someone explain to me how my original post was a troll?

Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (4, Funny)

lendude (620139) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874077)

Clearly the Senator has acolytes who check the content on these so called 'tubes'. You've made a powerful enemy today my friend...

Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (2, Insightful)

orcrist (16312) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874087)

Will someone explain to me how my original post was a troll?
Just a guess... but probably because of your sig. All it takes is one mod who's a bible-thumper...

Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (4, Funny)

Lordpidey (942444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874105)

Its about a bridge, and where do trolls live? DUH!

Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (2, Insightful)

ralewi1 (919193) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874229)

Yes, this is the senator who wanted "The Bridge To Nowhere", and he's very likely corrupt (the title "Senator" should be an indication), but having been to Ketchikan, and knowing why they want the bridge, there's been a long term push (think several decades) to get a bridge from the city of Ketchikan across the Tongass narrows to the spit of land they have to use for an airport. The local economy is based on fishing and tourism, which means a small permanent populations but a much larger transient population that needs to use the airport. Here's where things get tricky - what is the cost-benefit analysis on a sinking ferry full of passengers? So, yes, it's a bridge to nowhere, but the "nowhere" is a vital lifeline for the town.

Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874493)

But the town is tiny and the bridge is 500 million. It would literally be cheaper to *physically move the entire town* to the airport.

Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge? (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874651)

Would it?

No wonder... (1)

Guerilla* Napalm (762317) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873855)

he couldn't get anywhere on the interweb... the tubes were clogged with cash.

For starters (3, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873859)

The corruption goes way higher than that. But THAT is a state secret.

That's not how corruption works. (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873879)

The corruption goes way higher than that. But THAT is a state secret.



Corruption seeps in from the top down ("The fish starts to stink at the head", as other languages might put it). If you find someone at a certain level who is corrupt, it's safe to assume that corruption is already well established at the higher levels.


If your regular street cop is corrupt ... then that country is already screwed.

Earmarks are good? (4, Interesting)

mypalmike (454265) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873863)

"Earmarks are good for the country and good for the people you represent. That is the role of a congressman. If you can't get money for your district, you shouldn't be in Congress."

This is a quote FTA from Republican representative, Don Young.

This is the "party of smaller government?"

Re:Earmarks are good? (4, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873925)

This is the "party of smaller government?"

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

Re:Earmarks are good? (2, Insightful)

HillaryWBush (882804) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874027)

Perhaps 'smaller government' is code for smaller ethics, smaller worldview...smaller voter turnout. Vote the issues people!! Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is just fun to say smaller! Smaller smaller smaller!

Re:Earmarks are good? (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874029)

there is no government that actually wants small government. where else would they find their useless off spring high paying jobs they can't get fired from?

but if you want seriously bad, forget congress and look at the paper shufflers around them, they will do ANYTHING to increase their little kingdoms.

we need to call BS on "small government" (4, Insightful)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874051)

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

It's the same when they say "we believe in religious freedom!" -- what they mean is "We believe in the right of Christians to discriminate against non-Christians in hiring, housing, and so on," NOT "people should be free to practice their own religion." The phrase you're looking for is "glittering generalities." No one is going to argue against freedom, just as few will argue for big government. When you actually get down to what they really believe, it's pretty repugnant at times. These phrases get thrown around because they sound good and they build a false sense of consensus.

Re:we need to call BS on "small government" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874551)

My elementary school in San Diego in the 80s banned Christmas carols, but encouraged us all to sing Hanukkah songs. Couldn't quote the bible in a classroom, or even talk about religion in more than vague generalities in AP US History (which makes early US history incomprehensible), but detailed discussions in class on the beliefs of muslims was encouraged.

Religious discrimination is only against Christians these days.

But yeah, the Republican party is not for small government. The Republican Party is for the Republican party. My father's met Senator Stevens, been to his house, even. He talked with Ken Mehlman as well, on the same trip (was a Republican party cruise a year or two ago), and basically realized that they have no interest in doing anything but consolidating their own power. Which will cost them their power, of course... but try telling the chairman of the RNC that.

The only problem, of course, is that the Democrats are just as bad, if not worse, and their policies are even more harmful to the country. And will the Democrats and Republicans get together to open the country up to 3rd parties? Heh.

Re:we need to call BS on "small government" (5, Insightful)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874659)

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

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

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

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

Re:we need to call BS on "small government" (5, Interesting)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874561)

I'm registered as a Republican, and I enjoy news like this. I can hardly wait for the entire edifice of the modern GOP to come crashing down.

I think we're way beyond the point of ever having "small government" (God bless Ron Paul just the same). I'm in favor of more limited and fiscally disciplined government, like we had under Clinton. I'm not against safety nets and some forms of social welfare and I'm not against public sector spending. Some public infrastructure projects can (and have) increase wealth for a larger amount of people rather than lining a few pockets. (I'm thinking of proposals for public access wifi and broadband expansion.) Some regulation of industry is necessary if history is any basis for judgement. OTOH, regulation of morals is overstepping the proper bounds of government. (Fuck you, Christian Right.)

It's not just Bush/Cheney. It's the whole national apparatus of the GOP that has been corrupted. I'd rather that we were a weak minority party acting as a brake on the Dems than to do what the GOP has done over the past 12 years.

Note: Other then Arnold for Gov., I haven't voted for a Republican for national office since 1999. I've even donated to Democrat campaigns. But I don't think I could ever consider myself a Democrat. I'm too much of a liberal in the old school sense. Really old school.

Re:Earmarks are good? (1)

wheelgun (178700) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874067)

What's sad is that it's partially true. Our federal tax system is so burdensome that it's often easier to channel money through pork projects, rather than prevent them from taking it out of our wallets in the first place. It isn't the ideal solution. It's a pragmatic solution- a symptom of a much bigger problem. State and local governments have become partially or wholly dependent on federal tax dollars for many things. The situation will only get worse, unless the states start saying no to federal tax dollars.

I don't plan to hold my breath in anticipation of that.

Re:Earmarks are good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874259)

You think your tax system is fucked up?

Come to Brazil.

You will see that, in comparison, yours is not that bad.

Re:Earmarks are good? (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874137)

You have to understand something. Neither Republican nor Democrat politicians actually want smaller government. They want enough government to manipulate and use. Only if a smaller government would be easier to manipulate do they actually want that. Most times, it's easier hiding what they want to do among the funds for countless departments, funding proposals, studies, etc.

And earmarks are the fancy way of saying "I'm bringing home the money in droves. All it takes is fucking over the people in the other 49 states, but we know they aren't as American as the people in my state!" (The problem is, this is being repeated in every other state.)

Re:Earmarks are good? (1)

dufachi (973647) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874145)

I wasn't aware that "earmarking" meant accepting a half-million dollar bribe to get a bailout.

The fact that Mr. Young believes this is acceptable of a government official tells me that he needs to be removed from office as well as Mr. Stevens. But, I doubt anything will happen to either of them; and if it does, Bush will just commute/pardon their sentence.

Unfortunately (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874549)

Both parties are kind of two sides of the same coin. They are both for big government, just different big government. Republicans are for big government in things like military and infrastructure spending (needed or not). Democrats are for big government in things like entitlement payments. Likewise neither party is really for personal freedom. They both want to you be free to do things they like and prevented from doing things they do. Democrats are all about the freedom for things like gay marriage, but want to make it illegal to say things that hurt others feelings (hate speech laws). Republicans are happy to protect your right to be a bigot, but like hell they want to let gays get married.

Now of course there are exceptions to these rules, and if you are voting for someone in the major parties that's what you have to look at, is their politics not the party politics because BOTH parties are for big government and BOTH are for restricting personal freedom. You can also vote libertarian, at least assuming they'll run a candidate that isn't a complete nutjob in your area.

Quick ted (0, Redundant)

Skythe (921438) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873865)

Better unclog your tubes so your internets don't get discovered!

A meaningless reply... (0, Redundant)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873873)

Bwahahahahahahhahaha!

REPUBLIKKKANS!!!1!!one (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19873883)

HURRR HURRRRR HUUUURRRRRRR!!

Young is a representative, not a senator (5, Informative)

dufus4 (581604) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873887)

The other Congressman under a cloud is Rep. Don Young (R), not the other Alaskan senator (Lisa Murkowski (R)), who isn't yet being investigated for corruption.

A little balance Keith? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19873889)

If you're going to post this, where are the stories about Senator Feinstein [thehill.com] directing more than a billion dollars toward a company her husband controls? Or how about Harry Reid's son's and son in law [thehill.com] all being lobbyists, one even lobbying him?

How about slashdot go back to, oh, I dunno... technology instead of hiring editors who are nothing but partisan shills?

Re:A little balance Keith? (1)

RoscBottle (937276) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873963)

Oh no, you've misunderstood the term. A partisan shill might be someone - often a republican I've noted - who tries any which way to silence or mock news posted on internet news sites that isn't in the shill's own interest. Do not have a good day. Rosc

Re:A little balance Keith? (2, Interesting)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874085)

The reason this is relevant is ONLY because Ted Stevens said that the internet was a series of tubes. Slashdot reports news for nerds, and I'm sure a lot of us nerds are amused when anything happens involving Ted Stevens.

Re:A little balance Keith? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874263)

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

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

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

Re:A little balance Keith? (4, Interesting)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874341)

My working theory: Slashdot is really a political discussion forum. The whole "News for Nerds" thing is just here to scare away the unwanted.

Oh dammit I gave it away... Somebody silence me next time.

Who are these guys? (1, Insightful)

ZombieEngineer (738752) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873923)

Could someone please explain to a non-US resident why these two politicans are of interest to Geeks & Nerds.

Reading the article would suggest that the two in question are beyond what would be considered a normal retirement age.

ZombieEngineer

Re:Who are these guys? (1, Insightful)

uarch (637449) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873953)

It isn't of interest to "Geeks & Nerds". At least, no more than any other political story.

The only thing I can think of is kdawson saw "corruption" and "Republican" in the same post and got all excited. Especially since he made a point of making his own comment about some other random Republican.

I'm all for bashing politicians but lets not start flooding the front page with even more unrelated trash ;)

Re:Who are these guys? (3, Informative)

forgotten_my_nick (802929) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874183)

Clearly your post is like a big truck and not a series of tubes [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Who are these guys? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873959)

the simple answer is Sen Stevens likes to run his mouth about tech things he knows absolutely nothing about.(the tubes jokes, he described the internet as a series of tubes) he likes to spend money on a bridge (upwards of 1/2 BIL)to an island with like 70 people on it. Theres more but its 3:30 AM here and i dont feel like going into it someone else will pick it up

see earlier post (1)

cwerdna (572424) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873989)

As I posted earlier:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/ [slashdot.org] 03/0643238
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE [youtube.com]

It's scary that such ignoramuses are part of making policy for the US, esp. technology related policy. So, to the OP, do you have politicians making policy who are so ignorant about the subject matter?

Re:Who are these guys? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874005)

I don't think you understand the purpose of the "tubes" meme. It's a joke to be used in Slashdot comments, not a serious political criticism of Senator Stevens. His tubes speech was a pretty damned good explanation of bandwidth and network congestion, considering the guy has probably never used a computer before. The metaphor makes sense, even if you don't reach the same conclusion about network neutrality from it as he did.

Also, I think you need to double-check your math. The proposed bridge, which has not been built, is to cost about $350 million. That's quite clearly not "upwards of 1/2 BIL". Further, that decision had nothing to do with Stevens (he didn't think of it, plan it, vote for it, or campaign for it.) His only involvement in that issue was to stop the federal government from taking back the money it had already promised to Alaska for the bridge because they felt like giving the cash to a different state instead. You would be pissed too, if the feds promised your state $350 million, and then later changed their minds and sent it to someone else.

Re:Who are these guys? (4, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874241)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Who are these guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874175)

I'd like to thank Senator Stevens for reaffirming my belief, there IS a god, and maybe karma too. You don't have to be Republican to be corrupt or a pervert, but absolute power seems to corrupt absolutely, and the Republicans have had near absolute power for too many years now. Proof is, they invented the PS/3, the RIAA, NAMBLA, and the french fry. Well okay, not all of those. But the important ones. I salute you, Ted. Just don't try to explain 'tubes' in the prison shower in the future.

Re:Who are these guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19873961)

Could someone please explain to a non-US resident why these two politicans are of interest to Geeks & Nerds.

It tells you in the title. Stevens is the guy who invented the tubes that run the internets, replacing the truck that Al Gore originally used. Can you imagine if we still had one truck going door to door delivering all the data we used now? It used to work for Usenet, but times have changed. Stevens is a genius.

Re:Who are these guys? (1)

scapermoya (769847) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873993)

google "series of tubes"

Re:Who are these guys? (1)

More_Cowbell (957742) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874101)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes [wikipedia.org]

Maybe Jon Stewart said it best: "...you don't seem to know jack shit about computers or the Internet -- but that's okay -- you're just the guy in charge of regulating it."

Let's Compare! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19873937)

Slashdot summary: He's a Republican.
Linked article: He's a Republican with many years of experience who is running for reelection.

Slashdot summary: Senator is being investigated in a federal corruption probe
Linked article: Senator is "facing scrutiny" from federal investigators. He is thriving on the setbacks, and political analysts say nothing has happened that would cause him to "lose his perch" yet.

Slashdot summary: The investigation has implicated his son, Ben.
Linked article: Ben's office was raided by the FBI in an entirely separate incident over a year ago, and he hasn't been charged with a crime. (Sounds like something Slashdotters would condemn...like when accused software/music pirates get raided, but are never charged with a crime.)

Slashdot summary: A fishing co-op allegedly paid $500,000 to get a federal bailout from Ben and his father.
Linked article: No mention of anything about a fishing co-op or a federal bailout.

Slashdot summary: The other Alaskan senator is also "under a cloud". It doesn't mention what this cloud is, or even give her name, but it's sure to mention that she's a Republican.
Linked article: The only mention of the other Alaskan senator is that her party welcomes the challenge from Democrats, who were unable to unseat her. There is no mention of her being under any kind of "cloud" in either this article, or her Wikipedia article.

Not surprised (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19873955)

As an Alaskan, this does not surprise me... It may be useful to note that "the other Republican senator" is Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed as Senator by her FATHER, Frank Murkowski, when he was elected Governor (after being Senator himself). His administration had, to my recollection, the lowest approval rating in the history of Alaska, and was notorious for its almost unfathomable corruption. No, I didn't vote for any of these people.

SURPRISING!!!!!11111 (-1, Troll)

scapermoya (769847) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873983)

i don't hate all republicans. just the corrupt ones. (get it?)

Be Inspired (1)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874437)

Hmmmmm... an article about two corrupt Republicans, but your joke "i don't hate all republicans. just the corrupt ones" is somehow modded Offtopic? Was funny for me anyway :-)

As for Poor Senator 'Tubes', seek inspiration. Ask yourself, "Now what would Scooter do?"

This took a while to come out (1)

Mr EdgEy (983285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19873987)

Must be because of all the commercial activity.. enormous amounts of material.

A Better Way..... (5, Funny)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874109)

Why do we investigate politicians for corruption *AFTER* they fuck things up, instead of investigating politicians for competence *BEFORE* they fuck things up?

Re:A Better Way..... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874173)

Why do we investigate politicians for corruption *AFTER* they fuck things up, instead of investigating politicians for competence *BEFORE* they fuck things up?

They're called elections.

No, just kidding! That would require an informed public, which would result from an inquisitive media that is independent of the political system and advocates for the people.

Mod +1 funny.

Re:A Better Way..... (1)

MadJo (674225) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874431)

Because then we wouldn't have any politicians, and that would be bad... oh, erm, no, that would be a good thing.

*joins IHC Navistar in his protest*

How were the bribes delivered? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874139)

Did they use dumptrucks full of cash, or a series of money tubes?

Politicians are corrupt? (3, Insightful)

splutty (43475) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874179)

Democrats say all Republicans are liars. Republicans say all Democrats are liars. And this is the only time both of them speak the truth.

Re:Politicians are corrupt? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874623)

There's an easier way to tell. They're lying whenever their lips move.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874231)

Sorry for being just a dumb European, but what's out of the ordinary here? Isn't this how politics always work in the US?
Didn't Disney Corp pay for the Micky Mouse Act, and the RIAA and/or MPAA for the DMCA?

Brown envelopes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874233)

The Senate is a series of brown envelopes.

Rep. Don Young is not a Senator (2, Informative)

ortcutt (711694) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874235)

The other Alaskan senator, also a Republican, is under a cloud as well.
Don Young (R) is Alaska's sole Representative in Congress, not the other Alaskan Senator.

Corrupt politicians? (1)

madbawa (929673) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874243)

How is that news ????

Let's hope he gets sent to gaol.. (1)

10bellies (978724) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874285)

..then we can see how quickly his 'series of tubes' gets blocked.

Re:Let's hope he gets sent to gaol.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874531)

Why are Americans so obsessed with the anal rape of convicts?

Wouldn't that count as cruel and unusual punishment?

Re:Let's hope he gets sent to gaol.. (1)

10bellies (978724) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874565)

Doesn't my use of the correct spelling of gaol suggest I'm not American?

Politicians are Corrupt! (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874295)

News at 11.

But is an example of that fact going to lead to an interesting discussion on Slashdot?

Re:Politicians are Corrupt! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874665)

But is an example of that fact going to lead to an interesting discussion on Slashdot?
I know, let us begin an interesting discussion of this question! Anyone who will argue that it won't has already lost.

Tubes aside, why do we got nothing but crooks? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874355)

Aside of snide tube jokes and I'm pretty sure the "down the tubes" comment I read wasn't the only one, do you really think this is funny?

I mean, it may be selective journalism (ya know, you only hear about the bad ones), but why do we have corrupt politicians? Hell, don't we pay them more than enough? Why the corruption? I can see why a politician in Roman times had to be corrupt. Politics was a sport for the upper class because it was unpaid.

Today we're far from that. They usually have paychecks that make the average person go green in envy. Still that's appearantly not enough and they want more, more, more. And don't think it's an US phenomenon, you have the same greedy, bribable bastards all over the planet.

Why, I ask? Are politicians getting worse or do we just hear about it more often today?

Re:Tubes aside, why do we got nothing but crooks? (1)

bug_hunter (32923) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874373)

Everybody wants more power when they get a taste.

Re:Tubes aside, why do we got nothing but crooks? (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874567)

Because politicians get into politics to gain power for themselves, not to perform the public service they were elected to do.

Congresscritters are paid a good salary, but it's still a pittance compared to the diamond-encrusted carrots K street lobbyists dangle in front of their noses every day.

Re:Tubes aside, why do we got nothing but crooks? (2, Interesting)

MLease (652529) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874585)

We do hear about everything that happens more often today (especially the bad stuff, because that's the most newsworthy) than our ancestors did; we have better communication. But in politics, once corruption sets in, it's hard to reverse. When most people are honestly trying to serve the good of the people, things are reasonably good. However, when corrupt and corruptible people start getting into office, they find themselves with a competitive advantage. They are willing to do or say whatever it takes to get and keep office. The honest and principled ones begin to compromise or go down in defeat, and the general ethical level gets lower. It happened to Rome, and it's happening to us.

-Mike

Re:Tubes aside, why do we got nothing but crooks? (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874633)

Are politicians getting worse or do we just hear about it more often today?

I think we just hear about it more often. Remember, we now have a series of tubes that can be used to instantly transmit any negative information around the planet.

Slashdot: News for GeekTards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874361)

why is this article here?

this FP for 6NAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874367)

design approach. As Percent of the *BSD 'i have to kill How it was 5upposed GAY NIGGERS FROM

Tubes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19874417)

Jail is like a series of tubes. The bars are those tubes, and those "tubes" keep you from escaping. It is like a firewall, if you will, to protect the rest of society from you doing them harm.

Onthe whole "tubes" comment (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874457)

It is a bloody series of tubes. Or at elast it's a perfectly adeqaute metaphor.

Why do people seem to pick up on the most meaningful part of a largely ignorant an ill-informed speech?

Obligatory (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874499)

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton

Stuff that matters? (5, Insightful)

maroberts (15852) | more than 7 years ago | (#19874503)

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>