"Tubes" Senator Being Investigated For Corruption

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.

There goes his career,

[seanadams.com (463190)]

right down the tubes!

Re:There goes his career,

[mrbluze (1034940)]

right down the tubes!

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

Re:There goes his career,

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

[Don_dumb (927108)]

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.

Are these the senators that wanted the bridge?

[fishyfool (854019)]

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

Re:Are these the senators that wanted the bridge?

[MillionthMonkey (240664)]

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?

[lendude (620139)]

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

Earmarks are good?

[mypalmike (454265)]

"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?"

Unfortunately

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

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.

Re:we need to call BS on "small government"

[Ohreally_factor (593551)]

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:we need to call BS on "small government"

[misanthrope101 (253915)]

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.

"just as bad"

[misanthrope101 (253915)]

On a side note, I'd agree that the Democrats are probably just as corrupt, on average. Just as unresponsive to voter desires. But it wasn't a Democratic president that signed off on torture, gutted habeus corpus, claims to be exempt from any laws he doesn't like, put Americans under surveillance in direct violation of written law, and started an open-ended war with no clearly defined objectives that, and which became a terrorist recruiter's wet dream. So the Republican party has the standard complement of corruption and hubris, true, but then you add in all this other stuff, and the "just as bad" warning rings a bit false. Corruption + "we have to redefine torture so what we're doing isn't torture" is not the same thing as corruption alone.

Re:Earmarks are good?

[Black-Man (198831)]

These clowns are republicans in name only.

Young is a representative, not a senator

[dufus4 (581604)]

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.

Let's Compare!

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

[by Anonymous Coward]

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.

A Better Way.....

[IHC Navistar (967161)]

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

How were the bribes delivered?

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Tubes aside, why do we got nothing but crooks?

[Opportunist (166417)]

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?

Stuff that matters?

[maroberts (15852)]

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

Re:Who are these guys?

[WIAKywbfatw (307557)]

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:A little balance Keith?

[by Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Lost Engineer (459920)]

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.

Re:This will end well..

[stony3k (709718)]

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..

[by Anonymous Coward]

"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.