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!

FBI, IRS Raid Home of Sen. Ted Stevens

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the longest-serving-republican dept.

Slashback 539

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

cancel ×

539 comments

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

The same man... (3, Informative)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051137)

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

Re:The same man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051199)

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

Re:The same man... (1)

yourmomisfasterthana (1097719) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051491)

but if 'there' isn't anywhere, then it doesn't exist, and if it doesn't exist, how can you prove that he went 'there'?

Re:The same man... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051865)

The bridge to "no where" was never built and probably never will be. However no one realizes the bridge to "no where" is in fact a bridge to connect the city of Ketchikan Alaska to the local airport. The people of Ketchikan currently have to take a ferry to get to the airport. The bridge would be very useful for the town. My wife's family lives there and I visit there quite a bit.

Re:The same man... (2, Informative)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051595)

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

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

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

Re:The same man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051623)

they do elude to the fact...

...the line about him having a reputation for bringing home the bacon.

Re:The same man... (0, Offtopic)

Miseph (979059) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051859)

How do you "elude [reference.com] to" something? Surreptitiously travel there while avoiding pursuers? Did he not understand his own proposed legislation?

I am of course alluding [reference.com] to the fact that you used the entirely wrong word. Better luck next time.

You explain technology to the masses... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051153)

...and this is the thanks you get.

Re:You explain technology to the masses... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051383)

Not to spoil the joke, but a recent issue of Playboy has Tricia Helfer nudes. (No. 6, Battlestar Galactica). Have at 'er!

Re:You explain technology to the masses... (5, Funny)

Vulva R. Thompson, P (1060828) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051575)

Yeah, a perfectly good career down the tubes.

Burn in hell, Joe Sixpack.

Re:You explain technology to the masses... (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051833)

You just won the thread...congrats!

Power corrupts (0, Troll)

The AtomicPunk (450829) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051155)

... so vote for Ron Paul, who will help reduce the government's power. :)

Re:Power corrupts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051269)

I like Ron Paul, I donated to his campaign and want him to continue spreading the libertarian message ... that he doesn't have a chance in hell, nor would I want him to.

At this point the American empire is fading and whomever is elected president will most likely preside over the greatest economic collapse in world history. Too far gone at this point for anyone to save.

Re:Power corrupts (1)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051937)

And so we shouldn't try?

I encourage you to begin intelligently and respectfully educating those within your sphere of influence.

One of the most sane, cohesive and coherent things I've ever heard from a politician came from Ron Paul. Yet what he writes seems to be a well known fact in any culture outside the bubble that most non-power-holding neo-conservative (brainwashed lemmings*) live in.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr07 1003.htm [house.gov]

(*I can say that because I was one.)

Conspiracy nutjob Ron Paul was Re:Power corrupts (1, Funny)

rubies (962985) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051427)

Ron Paul? And hand power to the conspiracy nuts? That sounds like a great idea.

Re:Conspiracy nutjob Ron Paul was Re:Power corrupt (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051597)

Ron Paul? And hand power to the conspiracy nuts? That sounds like a great idea.

Actually, yes, it does.

We've got Congressmen, as well as many lesser bureaucrats, dropping left and right from scandals. Corporations are buying laws. We keep getting involved in Middle East conflicts for stupid reasons.

Do you seriously think no one's trying to screw the country over when dozens of people have been exposed trying to do just that?

Re:Conspiracy nutjob Ron Paul was Re:Power corrupt (1)

rubies (962985) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051795)

Do you seriously think handing power to someone who holds insane views is a way to fix corruption? I know he comes across as a genial, harmless old duffer, but he displays all the usual crank libertarian beliefs in hokey alternative medicine and the evils of government (yet wants to run for it). He's overdue for a zimmer frame, an aspirin and a nice lie down.

Re:Conspiracy nutjob Ron Paul was Re:Power corrupt (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051733)

Are you saying it's better to leave it in the hands of the...conspirators?

Re:Power corrupts (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051697)

Ron Paul... I like what he says to an extent. However i want someone completely new. Someone who has not been in the senate, or house. I want a new 3rd party real canidate. Not a Joseph Leiberman power hungry liar type... but a real 3rd party human being that is for progress and real problem solving. I want someone who is not controlled by coporations, lobbiests, who will stand up for people and the continuation of the real American ideals that have been lost and infected by this bullshit we all democracy.

Unfortunately such person does exist... but we'll never ever vote for whats right in this country. We'll vote for the same 2 parties that are in reality just a single party bribed by anyone with a fat wallet.

 

Re:Power corrupts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051961)

maybe the country will only vote for the 2 party crap, but it doesnt mean you have to.

if you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, youre still voting for evil.

take a look at the libertarian party. take a GOOD look. some of the ideas might seem weird or crazy until you think and realize how much sense they make.

http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org]

thank you.

Hey Ted (5, Funny)

Cracked Pottery (947450) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051169)

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

Re:Hey Ted (2, Informative)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051227)

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

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

Re:Hey Ted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051253)

He'll probably get a pardon from Bush.

Please don't joke about prison ass-rape. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051279)

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

Re:Please don't joke about prison ass-rape. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051311)

Are you witnessing from first hand experience?

That's why its called Prison... (-1, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051507)

Jeez, what do you want in Prison, Club Med? I'm still wondering why convicts get more than 1000 calories a day.

Re:That's why its called Prison... (5, Insightful)

feed_me_cereal (452042) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051603)

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

Re:That's why its called Prison... (1)

OurCompliments (888002) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051919)

Yes. That's too good for anybody who steals anything.

Re:That's why its called Prison... (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051955)

No, just the strawman.

Re:That's why its called Prison... (4, Insightful)

eric76 (679787) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051643)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:That's why its called Prison... (5, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051773)

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

Re:That's why its called Prison... (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051841)

If you're going to sentence someone to sodomy and near-starvation, you'd better go ahead and kill them.

Re:Hey Ted (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051513)

Of all the pork-barrelling that he did, he's probably hitting himself now for not getting federal funding for that five-star prison in Hawaii.

- RG>

Re:Hey Ted (0, Flamebait)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051519)

Oh the biting nerd humor! The wit!

It's pretty easy to make fun of an elderly man for not being totally up on the current lingo and getting it wrong by
saying tubes instead of pipes. Of course, when you are his age I doubt you'll be even close to that coherent or up on the current lingo. You'll probably be drooling and bed ridden because "YOU NO WANT GIRL -- YOU WANT HOT POCKET" and lil'smokies and comfortable computer chairs and such from which you can espouse your endless self-affirmation of intelligence. Don't let me stop you.

Can you tell I'm from Alaska? Can you tell I appreciate everything he has done for the state? Everything which majorly outweighs anything this federal probe could possibly uncover? Because that's what pisses me off -- people having no damned clue. Like you, for example.

Yea yea, you were just joking -- good job, nice Karma boost. And yea, I'm burning Karma doing this, because most people on Slashdot are just like you, and are here to crack jokes or boost their egos. Big fucking deal. I'm starting to get tired of people making fun of an old man for messing up the lingo of a younger generation when that sort of thing is expected out of the elderly.

But yes, very witty of you, by all means, please continue.

Let the modding begin.

Re:Hey Ted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051549)

Lighten up, Francis...

Re:Hey Ted (1)

Cctoide (923843) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051671)

I suppose living in Alaska means you've got nothing else to do but attempt to make nerds feel bad for laughing at someone's miscalculated speech and lack of understanding of something he was voting on (it wasn't just "a series of tubes", remember, he sent internets too).

Or it's just the Ted Stevens fan club. I can never tell.

Re:Hey Ted (3, Interesting)

Yusaku Godai (546058) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051683)

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

Re:Hey Ted (3, Insightful)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051701)

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

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

Re:Hey Ted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051751)

Can you tell I'm from Alaska? Can you tell I appreciate everything he has done for the state? Everything which majorly outweighs anything this federal probe could possibly uncover?

So corruption is cool by you as long as you benefit. Got it.

Re:Hey Ted (1)

Subm (79417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051801)

"Oh the biting nerd humor! The wit!"

Boy, did you miss the boat on this one. When the grandparent said federal prison is like a series of tubes, the humor wasn't that Stevens is and old man or misused lingo. GP expressed anger at a power-hungry, influence-peddling, democracy-subverting, tax-and-spend person [sourcewatch.org] . GP may not have been polite or subtle, but you missed the point.

It's too bad when you appreciate the money he helped bring into Alaska you don't realize where it came from. I probably paid more for the bridge to nowhere than you did. Or did you think he created money magically? It came from someone else who is now poorer. They just didn't have a representative who was as good at undermining our democratic principals.

Yes, the irony of misusing lingo was funny, but you didn't get it. You got dirty money from a guy with an ethics problem and then prefered to look the other way.

Re:Hey Ted (5, Insightful)

Quarters (18322) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051827)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Hey Ted (1)

Lockejaw (955650) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051929)

The difference is that the bed-ridden former nerd won't be trying to regulate the farm industry despite never having seen a farm.

Lets hope for him... (0, Redundant)

nebaz (453974) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051175)

that prison isn't also a series of tubes.

Re:Lets hope for him... (1)

SP33doh (930735) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051939)

oh no...
somebody has to warn them...

he's gonna sneak out in a big truck.

Obvious? (1)

thesupermikey (220055) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051179)

how about a little lol [flickr.com] at Mr. Stevens expense?

Nice Line from Stevens (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051183)

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

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

Re:Nice Line from Stevens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051551)

Exactly. He didn't say "We paid for everything with our own money." I love the way people lie by adding qualifiers to things.

Re:Nice Line from Stevens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051685)

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

The obvious question is: What about the bills that weren't sent to you?
You may be right.

All I know is that I just asked my bank to send my monthly mortgage bill to the good senator. Hell, he's got the money to cover it anyhow, right?

Oh, well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051185)

He should have gotten his tubes tied earlier... :-p

Token grant (0, Flamebait)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051191)

No big deal. Ted's 86 years old. He's independently wealthy. This is just a stage show for the government to have something to feed to the media to quell the questions about complete and utter lack of ethics and the exploitation of loopholes for their own benefit.

Whatever they find on Ted they could just as easily find on 95% of Capitol Hill, from elected officials to appointed positions to chauffers to the FBI/CIA/NSA agents themselves.

We'll hear about Ted's little corner of the conspiracy theory, maybe he'll get sacked out of his office, and then he'll retire to his home, the population will be exhausted from the effort, and the other 95% will continue along their merry way to robbing us all blind.

Don't US Senators have an appreciable amount of immunity from any real criminal prosecution, anyway? I don't know for certain. That's only what I recall from $somewhere. That could be wrong.

mod this shit down (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051397)

I guess it's worthless at this point to ask for you to support your outlandish claims which are completely devoid of any form of evidence. Not only because you won't provide it but because you can't. You have no evidence or support for your claims.

The only reason you are getting modded up is because any and every conspiracy theory gets modded up these days.

Mods, prove me wrong. Moderate this idiot down. Prove to me Slashdot hasn't been completely lost all reason. Don't believe he is a troll? Just check out his journal entries.

Re:mod this shit down (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051441)

support your outlandish claims which are completely devoid of any form of evidence.
Yeah. Okay. You go back live under your rock now. The rest of us remember the news we've read over the last year.

Re:mod this shit down (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051547)

support your outlandish claims which are completely devoid of any form of evidence.
Yeah. Okay. You go back live under your rock now. The rest of us remember the news we've read over the last year.
...but apparently can't link to any of it to make the point. But we remember it!

Re:mod this shit down (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051607)

'Cuz it's so cool to ask for a link to everything because you're too much of a retard to use Google or read the newspaper yourself?

Re:mod this shit down (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051657)

Technically, the burden of proof is on you, as you made the assertion.

I must admit, however, based on your 3rd grade level arguments above that you probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

Re:mod this shit down (0, Troll)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051749)

Yeah. There's no proof the FBI actually raided dude's house, either.

Oh look. You managed to get the mods to mod the original post down. Aren't you special.

Who gives a shit? You go back live under your rock.

Re:mod this shit down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051661)

No, because without giving specifics we have no way in hell knowing what you are specifically refering to. Give me one example. One that shows exactly what you are talking about. Of course you won't though.

(those of you who haven't picked up on his tactics, this post will be responded to with an ad hominem attack and no link. if there is a link it will be something generic and non-specific such as a link to a generic google search).

Re:mod this shit down (2, Insightful)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051781)

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

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

Re:mod this shit down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051843)

No specifics and no link. How did I guess?

Mod this down. I'm killing this account anyway. I'll just use one of the several dozen others.
Can't take the heat that the mods are finally catching on to your obvious trolling tactics?

Dumbocrap Setup (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051459)

Yep. The dems and their cronies in the media... tsk, tsk, tsk.

Re:Token grant (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051493)

Don't US Senators have an appreciable amount of immunity from any real criminal prosecution, anyway? I don't know for certain. That's only what I recall from $somewhere. That could be wrong.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec6.html [usconstitution.net]
"The Senators and Representatives ... shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

I wouldn't call that "appreciable" in any sense of the word.

Re:Token grant (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051561)

On most things we can say that all the politicians are corrupt. But Alaskas corruption is unique. The highest per captia government dole of any state. Some of this is justifiable, oil, defense, the location, but the bridges clearly show a lack of any accountability. And then the plan to open the wildlife reserve to drilling. Simply a thinly veiled plan to excise even more money from the legitimate a hardworking taxpayer. Such a plan would need massive infrastructure, would only be open a few months a year, and would not have any effect on the world oil market, as it's output would likely be no more than a rounding error. But it would continue the free money to the citizens of the state.

Certainly I have no problem with oil wealth, and have no problem taking advantage of it, but to be wealthy and still be on the government dole, well that is simply too much. Take a look at the other oil states. They have about 1/5 of the per capita budget.

Casting them all on the take is disingenous (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051641)

Yeah, from 1600 Pennsylvania to the Library of Congress (go look at a map), there's a lot of corrruption, but the figure of 95% does those that have tried and failed to remove corruption a bad disservice.

I find it odd to be defending some of these people, but indeed there are a strong number/percentage that don't take bribes, don't push their own projects in legislation, aren't on the take, have asked for campaign funding reform, and actually have a real heart-- and even a few that didn't vote for the war (for reasons good and bad).

Might Senator Stevens be guilty? Maybe. We let a trial by a judge (if selected by the defense) or a jury decide this, unless there's an admission of guilt or direct evidence to the contrary.

It's called due process, and everyone from scum to saints gets and deserves it. Even those that damn everyone with one brush.

Re:Casting them all on the take is disingenous (1, Insightful)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051835)

Even those that damn everyone with one brush.
You can't play on my guilt. I don't give a shit.

If they didn't know that the system was corrupt to the core before they ran for office then they sure as hell should've figured it out during the campaign process. Anyone who actually accepted the office, somehow convincing themselves that they could change something, deserves to be painted with the brush--if not for actual exploitation of their position then for the naivete which indirectly supports the position of those who do abuse their priveleges.

Taxes (4, Funny)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051201)

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

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

Re:Taxes (0, Offtopic)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051273)

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

Re:Taxes (3, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051357)

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

Seriously! (4, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051521)

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

Seriously ?


Seriously.

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

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

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

Re:Taxes (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051309)

Something tells me that you won't be able to find "Alaksa" on a map...That said, I've been there and it's absolutely beautiful. And the aurora is amazing. Everyone should try to get up there at least once in their life.

Re:Taxes (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051525)

> People in Alaksa don't pay taxes.

No state taxes anyway. They definitely do pay federal income tax.

And it's the state that pays the citizens. It's a dividend on oil revenue, and it's not really a lot.

Re:Taxes (2, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051921)

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

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

He's the victim. (5, Funny)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051203)

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

/sarcasm

Re:He's the victim. (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051443)

What you mean the internet companies didn't band together and write the federal corruption laws?

Re:He's the victim. (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051483)

Would those be the laws telling them how not to do it or the ones telling them how not to get caught doing it?

Re:He's the victim. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051975)

His understanding of net neutrality is at least as good as that of the average /. reader, given the position /. readers take.

His own money? (0, Redundant)

zussal (1058116) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051219)

"As a practical matter, I will tell you. We paid every bill that was given to us," Stevens told reporters. "Every bill that was sent to us has been paid, personally, with our own money, and that's all there is to it. It's our own money." Yeah, like I would pay someone else's utility bill.

good, back to proper web pseudonyms: (0, Redundant)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051235)

the innernats

the intarweb

this whole "series of tubes" metaphor in my mind reduced IT guys to nothing but plumbers 2.0

and IT guys with exposed asscrack is not a mental image i cherished

Re:good, back to proper web pseudonyms: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051295)

Because nobody talked about how big their pipe was when talking about internet connections before Stevens thought it up.

Re:good, back to proper web pseudonyms: (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051369)

And, conceptually, tubes never end in ports (noun2 on m-w.com), either.

It's a series of tubes! (1)

joeszilagyi (635484) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051239)

They just want to clean out the tubes he laid in his remodeling job.

Now if he would have just got his tubes tied (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051395)

Now if he would have just got his tubes tied like his wife said, he wouldn't have gotten into this problem... Men, know your limits!

still at it kdawson? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051259)

you like being a petty little bitch who have deformed a once powerful tech site into a laughing stalk for the internet? i hear that digg is hiring, fucking fucktard asshole.

Mod parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051885)

How the hell is this story "news for nerds"? Why all the politics shit? Even kuro5hin has less political bs.

Darn, I never thought I'd live to see the day when I'd say the following: bring back Michael Sims. He was bad, but not half as bad as these loser moderators we have now.

Obligatory Steven's quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051291)

NO!

It is all tubes. (0)

kevorkian (142533) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051351)

Really .. His analogy of tubes is one of the best I have ever heard. And I am not trying to be funny.

I think its funny that people make fun of him for it. The way he presented it was funny. His voice is funny. But not the idea behind 'tubes' Because really , thats one of the best ways to explain it to someone that has no understanding of what it is

The "Internet" is simply a network of networks ..

The connections between "networks" is really just a tube for data to flow through.
But anywat ..

Re:It is all tubes. (1)

zussal (1058116) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051409)

What is "funny"???

Re:It is all tubes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051731)

The problem with his "tubes" statement is that it is not only stupid but misleading.

Why not conveyor belt? Why not train track?

Conveyor belt section vs train car, instead of a truck.

Each section or train car can hold a certain amount of cargo. Any cargo that is over the limit gets separated and put into it's own section or car. This may not be in the section/car directly behind the first, but it will get to where it is supposed to go. Each section/car is as important as the one before it and after it. No playing favorites. If the total of your cargo is only two sections/cars then you only have to wait for that those two to show up. If the total of your cargo is over 400 sections/cars then you have to wait for all 400 to show up.

Now problems happen when there is a collison of sections/cars. If that happens, then the affected cargo gets re-sent from the originating conveyor connection. If there is a down area of the conveyor belt then it simply changes course and routes around the downed area. This perhaps will cause parts of your cargo to take more time to get to you, but it will get to you.

Now this is assuming TCP, which is what most of the web and email services. UDP has another way of doing things, but basically all the same.

No bit of cargo is anymore important than the others. Unless someone purposefully changes their area of the conveyor belt / train track.

If his truck statement had included that everything was loaded onto trucks and that trucks were all equally loaded and that each truck in a convoy is not one behind the other, then maybe we could forgive. But his analogy that a single truck (carrying an entire payload) can clog up a tube is completely wrong. Outside of a purposefully malformed packet to do sinister things. But then the tube is not a tube anymore, it is something that can be routed around almost immediately, but definitely faster than we could say immediately.

No comment (1)

zussal (1058116) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051447)

Stevens' Washington, D.C., lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, said he had a "longstanding practice not to comment on such matters" and would not answer any questions about the raid.

Yeah, back in his moonshining days ol' Ted learned a lot.

Tubes (1)

cuantar (897695) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051461)

The oil company knows all about oil pipelines, right? So Stevens enlisted their help in his remodeling project: he wants more and bigger intertubes going to his house, so that the internets that he sends to his secretaries get there faster. The problem is, terrorists could be hiding in these tubes -- oh noes! Cue the FBI.

Oh, and the IRS got involved for the hell of it. [sarcasm]Might as well, he can probably afford to pay more taxes, just like everyone else.[/sarcasm]

It's not a truck! ... (5, Funny)

boster (124383) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051471)

... It's a series of frauds!

Republicans (-1, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051579)

Republican. From a state with a primarily oil economy.

Re:Republicans (1)

Bongo Bill (853669) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051791)

Yep. He sure is. Perceptive, aren't you?

Re:Republicans (0, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051813)

Thanks for the Republican attempt at humor. That's perceptive of me, too, right?

Re:Republicans (1)

Bongo Bill (853669) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051875)

Only perceptive if it's true, I'm afraid.

Obviously Innocent (-1, Flamebait)

tjstork (137384) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051589)

I think he's been framed by the same Democrats that just tried to murder the chief justice of the supreme court.

Need to change campaign laws (5, Insightful)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051611)

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

Re:Need to change campaign laws (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051899)

Damn straight. Also, the contribution should be limited to no more than $100 per person. That way, Bill Gates has no more or less influence than some random Seattle street urchin. Campaigns cost too much money? Well, tough fucking luck.

Of course, there is still a problem with private companies (RNC/DNC) taking money and publishing ads on behalf of a candidate without actually giving the money to a candidate. And if you try and limit their rights, then that whole pesky First Amendment thing gets in the way.

Of course, the only people who could make this happen will never actually do anything to hurt their own self-interests.

how funny (5, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051713)

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

Re:how funny (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 7 years ago | (#20051863)

What makes you think they didn't do that with Jefferson, and he was just too stupid to get rid of the money? Or maybe he was just convinced nothing would come of it. After all, so far, he'd be right.

TEST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20051793)

testing... please mod down.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?