Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens Is Indicted 553
Many readers are letting us know about the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens on seven counts of making false statements on his financial disclosure forms. We discussed the raid on the senator's house a while back. Everyone's favorite technologically challenged senator is the longest-serving Republican in the history of the upper house. An Alaskan paper gives deep background on the probe that has ensnared Stevens and a number of other Alaska political figures.
tee-hee (Score:5, Funny)
There's a joke here about federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison and clogged tubes but I'm just going to savor the indictment instead.
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Insightful)
People like Ted Stevens don't go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Some pigs are more equal than others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A rich powerful man only goes to prison if a richer, more powerful man wants him there. I wonder who he pissed off? Gates? Branson?
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Funny)
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Funny)
His first name is "The" and his last name is "People".
Aww, aren't you cute. You actually believe that, don't you. That's just precious.
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you've bought into the whole "cheap cynicism is cool" BS, doesn't mean you have to be so condescending to those of us who still recognize that sometimes the right people do the right things for the right reasons.
Maybe not often, but it happens.
Re:tee-hee (Score:4, Insightful)
Might well be because the cynicism is deserved rather than because it's "cool".
Just because some people are still naive enough to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Honest Politicians doesn't mean all of us should disable our critical thinking skills.
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Interesting)
Politicians are powerful, but nowhere near that wealthy. The CEO of even a modestly sized company earns more than a US Senator.
The likelihood is that Tubes was simply far too blatant with his shady deals. So blatant that even the masses began to notice. Once that happened, he became a liability to the people that were once willing to use him and he had to be gotten rid of.
The smart politician is corrupt, but always discrete about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:tee-hee (Score:4, Informative)
Nixon was piss-poor until well after his becoming vice-president, as his voluntarily disclosed tax returns show.
Re:Yeah, and what happened with that one? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the Vietnam War began during the Eisenhower administration, but thanks for playing anyway. As a parting gift, here is a link from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to be kidding me. US Senators might only be paid a base salary of 165K or so, but their ability to generate wealth far exceeds the ability of many corporate CEOs.
Quote from Forbes:
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to be kidding me. US Senators might only be paid a base salary of 165K or so, but their ability to generate wealth far exceeds the ability of many corporate CEOs.
Quote from Forbes:
The point you missed is that their net worth was that high before they became Senators.
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nobody (Score:5, Interesting)
Being indicited is nothing. Yet. Once convicted, either W or McCain will pardon him, if they are in office.
Don't be so sure on that one. Although I'm not fan of the major parties, McCain and Stevens have been opposing each other on key issues for a long time. Probably the most distinctive between the two is the issue of earmarking. McCain's opposition and Stevens' abuse of them have been completely polar stances on the issue.
Just because people share the same political party does not mean their views do not vary widely, and the idea that 50% of politicians get to walk just because their party is in the white house is not reality.
Re:Nobody (Score:5, Funny)
McCain and Stevens have been opposing each other on key issues...
Ah yes, the Geritol "Tastes great/Less Filling" debate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:tee-hee (Score:4, Interesting)
Some pigs are more equal than others.
Sad memo...
In Italy our Prime Minister actually said that, speaking of himself, in court.
well, he didn't say pigs actually... nor he put that in plural...
He just said (speaking of himself):"this citizen is more equal than the others, since he's been elected"...
*sigh*
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Funny)
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Funny)
the senator will be learning a new line;
You've got Male!
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Funny)
At the moment it's only his finances that are being probed.
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only assume that you are confused by Alcatraz being a recreational area now. Alcatraz was not a pleasant place when it was a federal prison. Back then the tour of the place lasted a bit longer than an afternoon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"a few" is right. The vast majority of criminals in federal prison are still non-violent offenders, while state prisons have a much higher percentage of violent criminals.
Maybe the fact that it's true? The fact that federal prison is filled with peop
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Insightful)
Uncle Ted may be going to Leavenworth, or some other Federal joint, but he's going to be held in the minimalist minimal security section, and will have unlimited visits and weekend trips home. No US senator (or Bush Administration member) will ever see the inside of a real jail cell. No matter what they've done.
Hell, the Vice President shot a guy in the face and told the sheriff who came to the door to come back tomorrow, and then had the luxury of almost a full day to clean up any potential evidence (or potential witness). Next time you get stopped for speeding, try giving the trooper your cell number and asking him to give you a call tomorrow, when you promise to take care of the matter. See where that gets you.
Ted Stevens' attorneys will say that their client is too old and feeble to do any time at all, even if Ted goes hunting every other weekend and bangs hookers and snorts meth daily. And the federal judge will talk about how losing his reelection bid will be "sufficient punishment" for this great man who has served his country for so long, blah blah blah.
Bottom line is that Senator Stevens will, like his brethren, jack off in the face of the Rule of Law.
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Interesting)
Federal prison is mainly big-time drug users and drug dealers.
State prison is mainly small-time drug users and drug dealers.
A friend's brother down in the St Louis area went to federal prison for loaning a cocaine dealer a thousand dollars; the charge was conspiracy to deliver cocaine (the dealer had been busted and was setting up innocent guys to lessen his own sentence; most of his high school graduating class went to Maximum Security Club Fed for twice as long as he did).
Violent criminals usually don't get caught. When they do, it depends on who they attacked.
A woman I know went to Dwight Correctional (Illinois hardcore women'sprison) for 4 months for nonviolent drug posession, while a guy I know and intensly dislike broke into a man's home and tried to kill him with a butcher knife. He spent two weeks in the county jail - but the man he attacked was a poor black man.
That is American justice.
Re:tee-hee (Score:4, Informative)
Federal prison is mainly big-time drug users and drug dealers.
Correct. Well, I dunno that it's all big-time, but it mainly drug users/dealers.
State prison is mainly small-time drug users and drug dealers
Incorrect. There are far more violent criminals than drug users/dealers in state prisons.
I can't find a link in 2 minutes of googling, but the proportions haven't changed much since 2000:
-- http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm [ojp.gov]
Re:tee-hee (Score:4, Informative)
No, I'm getting at the fact that people that are drug users or drug dealers may be imprisoned solely for other crimes because that's what they are convicted of
That would fall under my second option ("If what you're getting at is that these people may be drug users/dealers independent of the crimes that they were convicted for").
the prohibition of drugs (whether that policy is on balance justified or not) makes it more likely that any drug user or seller will be involved in violence
Absolutely true. Still, we don't say that people are in jail for poverty when they get busted stealing stuff, or for alcohol use when they commit violent crimes after having several drinks.
My main interest in correcting the GGP is that I'm in favor of re-examining drug prohibition, and I think the numbers are stark enough when presented without an obvious bias.
Trying to claim that state prisons are mostly in for drug use/dealing makes opponents of reform likely to turn a deaf ear when they look at the numbers and see that that is certainly not obviously true, and requires drawing a lot of tenuous implications to defend.
It undermines the argument to present contorted conclusions as fact, and if you want to make the more complex case you should take the time to do so fully; if you just want a quick stat, saying that more than half of our federal prisoners are in for drug crimes and another quarter-million prisoners in state prisons are there for drug crimes (1 in 5 state prisoners).
Down the tubes.. (Score:5, Funny)
It's a house, that you can add things to...apparently for free.
Well, there goes another political career... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I dunno about down the career down the drain...The man is like 82...it's more like a forced retirement, with a free retirement home security package!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, there goes another political career... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, there goes another political career... (Score:5, Insightful)
One good option for him is to win reelection, then resign to allow the Republican Governor to appoint another Republican to serve out his term. For that Bush will grant him a pardon on the last day "for the 40 years of service to the country", and he will fade away.
Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:4, Funny)
AHHH No more bridges to no where. I think I am going to cry. I wanted to visit that uninhabitabed ice berg in alaska.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We actually saw a little wooden walkway on the side of the road going over some (protected) marsh land. The size of the plaque thanking the Senator for his work in securing financing for the walkway was comparable in size to the structure itself... Who knows, how much that little piece cost the federal government, and how much the grateful contractors have contributed to the guy's campaign, him personally, and those he loves.
I must admit, he played the dimwits "protecting the wilderness" (without ever set
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
lol yah...our government never ceases to amaze me. Even the senate's most senior republican is dirty. I mean in general not just him. Our entire government spent so much money on pork like "bridges to nowhere", "bike trails", fountains, etc.
It is just horrible that at a time when the national debt is so high we still throw money around like its nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but do you really think bike trails and fountains are pork?
No, they're not investments in science in engineering - which we surely need more of - but these two contribute to the public's physical and mental health, respectively. No small matter, that.
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're that useful, then local governments can pay for them, unless they're in national parks. I'm no small-government fanatic, but even I don't see why my taxes should help improve the lives of cyclists in Idaho.
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do people in Idaho not pay those taxes also?
Does any of those taxes that those in Idaho also pay get funnelled into the state you live in?
Isn't spending money on real American citizens not actually a decent break from where a huge amount of the fed'gov's spending usually goes?
Can you really really see no reason why your taxes should go towards improving peoples lives? Are people who live their lives closer to you worth more of your tax dollars? Are your tax dollars different to people who live in further away states such that they must be divided and never mixed?
I agree that local governments should do what they can, just because it's going to be done more efficiently (smaller body = (reletively) less red tape etc) but fundamentally, where the amount being spent is equal, it hardly matters who does it, as long as you don't get one state funding development in another more than the reverse is also true, above the level of how much the one state needs help over the other.
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a damn thing.
If the states are derelict in their responsibility then the citizens of those states can vote in a new state government. If they continue to vote in an irresponsible government that doesn't attend to their needs, then I'm not shedding a tear. People tend to get the government they deserve.
The only time the Feds have an obligation to intervene is when the states are abridging the rights of the citizens of the United States. A state's minority not getting what they want is does not give carte blanche to the Feds to "remedy" the situation.
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:4, Funny)
Don't straw man me - I never said bridges to nowhere weren't pork. You and I are 100% on the same page there. But my questions remain unanswered - what do we do about national parks, interstate trails & parks, the D.C.?
And our own disagreement brings another question to mind: how do we see determine which projects are legitimate expenses for government and which are "simply a luxury?" Maybe we should choose some group of people to represent us and vote on it...
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't straw man me - I never said bridges to nowhere weren't pork. You and I are 100% on the same page there. But my questions remain unanswered - what do we do about national parks, interstate trails & parks, the D.C.?
And our own disagreement brings another question to mind: how do we see determine which projects are legitimate expenses for government and which are "simply a luxury?" Maybe we should choose some group of people to represent us and vote on it...
I'm sorry I did not mean that in general these projects were all bad. But it is obvious between a legitimate need and pork. When you are building random stuff in the middle for no particular reason. And the federal government typically doesn't pay for projects like that.
Heck I am all for beautifying a city. I live near Weston...the poster child for a planned city and they did a nice job. But did the state of Florida or the United States government pay for it...no. Weston has higher property taxes and its residents ay for it. But thats how it should be. They footed the bill on their own city. I have never heard anyone from Weston complain that the taxes were too hgih because they wanted to live in a city with nice parks, land scaping, fountains, and bike trails.
My point was simply Senators should not be having the sole goal of making the most money for their state. Sure they are going to be an advocate for their state but that doesn't mean that they can get away with stealing money from the federal government just add figures to his campaign. going to be an advocate for their state but that doesn't mean that they can get away with stealing money from the federal government just add figures to his campaign.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My first reaction is 'hell no!', but then I think about how much money the federal government steals...err takes from the states through taxes. The states then have to jump through hoops to get that money sent back to them. Look at how states have to comply with federal laws to get road money back that should have never left the state in the first place. Schools are another good example
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't that "bridge to nowhere" actually go to the town's AIRPORT? Yep. [wikipedia.org]
Sounds like a legitimate need to me.
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which was already adequately served by ferry service.
And the ferry service could have been expanded at a fraction of the cost of the bridge.
It was unnecessary pork that signified an enormous disrespect for the idea of spending tax dollars efficiently.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is just horrible that at a time when the national debt is so high we still throw money around like its nothing.
Except that it IS nothing to them. They'll just make more money and/or sell us out to countries who hate us! What do they care? The American taxpayer is footing the bill for their well-being. And pensions. I say, put them on Social Security like the rest of us, and allow their salaries to be commensurate to their approval rating. We'll get some useful things happening then.
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:4, Interesting)
Power corrupts — I prefer Republicans strongly — but being in power for this long is not healthy.
This guy, along with a few others (Kennedy-cough-cough), are the "poster children" for term-limits on not just presidency, but other elected offices.
In a remote state such as Alaska, where residents are paid to live there [yahoo.com] and pay neither income nor sales tax [bankrate.com], his constituents have especially little reason to care for his wasting (and, likely, outright stealing) federal government's money, as long as they get a bit of it too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which describes almost every "red" state in the Union.
This helps explain why the Republicans are no longer the party of small government. It strikes me as rich irony that the party that decries the existence of the 'welfare state' is dependent upon welfare from the democtratic states in order to keep the pork coming
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation needed. Badly.
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an obnoxiously laid out page that shows many dollars a state received per dollar paid out in 2005. I'm sure you can find a red state/blue state map somewhere and do the comparison yourself.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html [taxfoundation.org]
Actually, if you would compare that to the 2004 election and post red/blue totals, that would be great.
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an obnoxiously laid out page that shows many dollars a state received per dollar paid out in 2005. I'm sure you can find a red state/blue state map somewhere and do the comparison yourself.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html [taxfoundation.org]
Actually, if you would compare that to the 2004 election and post red/blue totals, that would be great.
Actually, this is much better, and has an interesting map to boot. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf [taxfoundation.org] (PDF)
Re:Guess I'll have to cancel the trip... (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to see balance of payment figures, check this link [northjersey.com] out. New Jersey (my home state), for example, only receives $0.61 for every dollar remitted to the federal government.
Here's [taxfoundation.org] a nice slideshow that shows 25 years of historical BOP rankings for each state (flash required).
The correlation between "red state" and "high ranking in funds received vs. remitted" is extremely strong... I'd seen a map of red/blue states where the data was plugged in that made it ridiculously apparent, but couldn't find the link quickly & can't be bothered to do the same myself right now. I'm sure it's around somewhere if you care to spend some time googling.
Funny, though, how it's primarily due to the higher incomes in the blue states and the progressive tax system... and the Republicans are the ones against a progressive tax system that benefits their states. Just goes to confirm that the rural poor in the US vote against their own economic interests.
Uh-oh, "hypocrisy" (Score:5, Funny)
There is nothing particularly hypocritical in denouncing, what you think is an awful idea, while milking it for as long as it is forced upon you anyway.
And watch the "discussion" devolve... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone hates congress...until election time when 95% of them get reelected.
Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... (Score:4, Insightful)
That pattern can be explained in a single word: gerrymandering.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... (Score:5, Insightful)
The consequence of this system is that corruption never gets rooted out and a bunch of old men are deciding the future of a country that's changing very rapidly. I'll vote against incumbents when they give me a good alternative, and that doesn't happen too often.
Re:And watch the "discussion" devolve... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to say I don't hate this guy. I mean let's face it he took bribes and did some other scummy things. Hate seems over the top for this guy.
Yep I don't care if he is Republican, Democrat, or Ron Paul's love child. If he guilty get him out.
As far as partisan bickering... I never understood the emotional investment people make in politicians.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The emotional investment is ridiculously easy to explain.
There are about 5,000 american soldiers dead in Iraq, a war of aggression against a nation that hadn't attacked us based on false information. That's 5,000 families who are without a brother, a sister, a father, a mother, an aunt, an uncle, a neice, a nephew. A young man or woman dying needlessly is a very tragic and emotional event.
It's not hard to get worked up over stuff like that. It's very easy, in fact, to get all self-righteous and call Republi
So what I want to know (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what I want to know (Score:5, Insightful)
"How did he stay in office so long if there was already evidence of corruption in 2003 and 2004?"
The same way Dan Rostenkowski did and Marion Barry and Murtha after Abscam:
"He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch"
Also keep in mind that he has brought home a lot of bacon to the residents of Alaska, and they probably view such minor corruption as a cross they just have to bear to get the goodies. Remember, the "bridge to nowhere" ALMOST got approved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or the same way John Mccain did after Keating Five.
Didn't Rostenkowski go to prison?
Re:So what I want to know (Score:5, Insightful)
How did he stay in office so long if there was already evidence of corruption in 2003 [pqarchiver.com] and 2004 [thehill.com]?
The same way that William Jefferson [cnn.com] of New Orleans did (and still is).
(Who, BTW, in response to the AC that also responded to your post, is NOT white)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Chappaquiddick happened 7 years after Kennedy first joined the Senate. As far as I know, he plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, but was never charged, let alone convicted or murder or even manslaughter.
Kennedy was hardly senior in the Senate when this happened, though of course as a Kennedy he likely had more deference paid than had he been from a lesser known family.
Tubes Stevens = Ranking member of the Science cte. (Score:3, Funny)
Yep. crazy.
Tubes dance mix (Score:5, Funny)
Enjoy:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs [youtube.com]
The indictment (pdf) (Score:5, Insightful)
text of the indictment [adn.com] is now available.
It was a part of the scheme that STEVENS, while during that same time period that he was concealing his continuing receipt of things of value from ALLEN and VECO from 1999 to 2006, received and accepted solicitations for multiple official actions from ALLEN and other VECO employees, and knowing that STEVENS could and did use his official position and his office on behalf of VECO during that same time period.
That sounds like good old-fashioned bribery to me, but with our screwed-up laws it's probably a lot easier to convict a politician for lying about the bribes than for taking the bribes.
As a lifelong Alaskan... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me be the first to shout:
"Yeee-hawww!!!"
Good riddence! The coming Alaska senate race is going to be one of the most interesting in history. I suggest everyone look into it. On the democratic front, we've got popular Anchorage city mayor, Mark Beigich, who's taken the election scene by storm in just the last month or so. And Stevens, being a long time incombant, is running virtually unopposed on the republican front.
In the house, rep. Don ("I'll beat you over the head with a walrus penis") Young is having even more trouble, due to falling public perception and the VICO scandal. This long-time incumbent may be KOed in the primary by our Lt. Governor.
The republicans only star runners, at this point, are Gov. Sarah Palin and Lt Gov. Sean Parnel. Parnel is running against Young in the house, and Sarah just had a child and is busy fighting some of her own battles.
Translation: the alaska republican party is FUCKED. Before the year is out, there's a very good chance we'll see our one house seat filled by a Dem, one of our Senate seats filled by a Dem, and the state's electoral votes go to Barak Obama (currently a very close race). AK is one of the most conservative and republican states in the country, btw.
Re:As a lifelong Alaskan... (Score:5, Interesting)
AK is one of the most conservative and republican states in the country, btw.
Alaskans love calling themselves conservative. However, when it actually comes down to the issues, they seem to be pretty strong liberals (I'd call them anarcho-socialists, even though the term is somewhat self-contradictory)
A few observations:
1) They're pro-gun rights, but more in the "protecting yourself from grizzlies" sense than then the "self defense against unarmed burglar" sense.
2) Pro-drug-legalization. 20+ hours/day of darkness in the wintertime. 'Nuff said.
3) Surveillance isn't an issue. (Seriously)
4) Pro-alternative-energy. Alaskans are among the first to see the real effects of climate change. In places like Fairbanks, the temperature inversion in the winter also causes smog to hang low to the ground, and accumulate over the course of the winter, which has a very noticeable effect.
5) The bible belt hasn't really infiltrated Alaska nearly as much as it has the other "red states". People actually seem to be vaguely rational regarding social issues.
6) Pro-military. Tons of military bases in Alaska. Like much of the military, they're also a bit uneasy about the number of dead bodies returning from Iraq.
7) Pro-small-government. If you enjoy living in the middle of nowhere, you probably don't support a large, overbearing government.
For Old Time's Sake (Score:5, Informative)
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) offered up this bizarre explanation for why he voted against net neutrality laws. In it, he explains how the internet works...
"There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.
But this service isn't going to go through the internet and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.
Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.
We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discriminate against those people [...]
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time.
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?
Do you know why?
Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.
[...]
Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.
Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.
It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.
The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a violation of net neutrality that hits you and me."
RS
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no particular fondness for Sen. Stevens, but I hope everybody who made fun of him for calling the internet a series of tubes finds themselves in the same position when they're older.
The guy hears the younger folks calling it a "pipe", he's got industry insiders telling him confusing, and misleading things about how the system works, and he screws up the analogy when he's talking about it later on. Big deal. Some day when you're not so young, you're going to screw up the jargon when you're talking abo
Re:For Old Time's Sake (Score:5, Insightful)
When I'm too old to understand what the fuck I'm talking about, I'll resign from congress and not try to legislate it.
If he's too old to get it, it's time to get out. I wouldn't be angry about some other old man not understanding new technology, but he has power over it. That's dangerous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If this was just my grandfather ranting about the kids today, I'd smile and nod.
But this is a man who chaired the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation during the 109th Congress, and is still on the committee today. This is someone who is going to be making direct policy decisions about the internet, not some harmless rambling old man.
Then again, he's also been the chairman of the Senate Ethics Committe. They really know how to pick them, don't they?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When will it be Reid's Turn? [wsj.com]
It's credit mobilier [wikipedia.org] all over again except this time it's housing instead of rail roads. Fannie Mae and Mac are schemes to buy votes with tax payer dollars and use more tax payer dollars to fund electoral campaigns.
Both parties are in it up to their neck.
Bad News for the Democrats (Score:3, Informative)
As much as we like to joke about this guy... (Score:3, Informative)
his technological incompetence is the least of anybody's problems (yes, he's on the committee for regulating our future livelihoods and should understand this stuff..)
He's the guy who wanted the bridge to nowhere.... let's be frank that's a much larger problem than his blustering.
This is good - maybe the system works? It's too early to see
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He's the guy who wanted the bridge to nowhere.... let's be frank that's a much larger problem than his blustering.
The people on the island that the bridge would have gone to didn't even want the damn bridge. I seriously doubt it'd have ever been built.
On the other hand, the second "bridge to nowhere" that got struck down would have been fairly useful, even though it was presently uninhabited, as it would have connected directly to the heavily-congested Anchorage metropolitan area, opening new land up for development.
Sure takes a long time to convict Congressmen (Score:3, Interesting)
Indictment Kicks Him Out of Committee Chairs (Score:4, Informative)
The Senate's rules require that Stevens immediately give up his committee chairs or "ranking member" status [msn.com] that gives him privileges in controlling most Senate business:
Indictments should be a lot more common for that gang of crooks.
I May Be A Conservative (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately they bowed to his threat at the time.
If the Democrats were as hard on their elected politicians as I was on this one, we could have a much better Congress than we have now. Having someone as a member of your own party doesn't make them wonderful. Sometimes they're just embarassing.
Re:Series of Tubes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I think anyone who knows anything knows you're right. I mean, the word "pipe" is part of network jargon for a reason, and the only difference between a tube and a pipe is that a tube is better engineered and you can use precision fittings and bend it, instead of having to threading the ends of each piece to join together with joints. It's like calling the colour of a banana "saffron" instead of "yellow".
On the other hand, it's fun and easy to make fun of Republicans, especially old ones who talk a
Re:Series of Tubes (Score:5, Informative)
If he simply said "the Internet is like a series of tubes and if too much stuff is going through it, it will slow down", then he might have been right, generally speaking.
However, his speaking style was garbled and it frequently looked like he was trying to make a point, didn't know what it was, and was confused about technical details that shouldn't confuse someone basically in charge of setting Internet policies for the USA. Here are a few gems (thanks to the previous poster who posted this text):
Ok, talking about Netflix here. So far, so good. You order movies online and they arrive at your door.
Now he, all of a sudden, leaps from movies delivered to your door to movies streamed online. He seems to think that: 1) you would order ten movies at once, 2) you would stream those ten movies at the same time, and 3) you would be surprised when your connection speeds dropped into the basement.
Obvious misuse of terminology. I might be nitpicking if the person in question was an 80 year old grandmother who just got online, but this guy was in charge of setting Internet policies in the US. Can't he call it an "e-mail" and not an "Internet." (Unless his staff really was sending him an interconnected network of computers. I'd like to see the shipping charges on that!)
Or because the mail server was slow. These things happen and they're almost never due to commercial internet traffic slowing things down.
He seems to be of the mind that sites like YouTube just dump their content onto the Internet and it somehow clogs up the works for everyone. The reality is that YouTube, and sites like it, take up 0 content all by themselves. When you request a video from YouTube, the server responds by sending you the video and just that video, not YouTube's entire collection. If a lot of people on your network are viewing a large number of YouTube videos, then, yes, YouTube traffic will account for a fair amount of the total traffic going over the network. However, this traffic is initiated by the user, not the site.
Or, more likely, because the DOD isn't dumb and doesn't want to deliver sensitive and classified information over a public network.
Re:Series of Tubes (Score:5, Funny)
You also call a computer a "box", but I doubt anyone would think a shoebox can serve the same purpose, or would compare it with one when it comes to getting math problems solved.
Jargon doesn't have to be accurate. It rarely is. How often do you have to search for your data that you put on a "heap" (provided you can code, that is)? How often do you kick your system while you "boot" it? Ever tried to bend or even fold a 3.5" "floppy disc"? Have you ever made out with a port because it's got a female connector? Do you have to keep your cat away from your "mouse"? Ever unlocked your door with something you got from a "keyboard"?
The audience is encouraged to come up with worse jargon abuse.
Re:Series of Tubes (Score:5, Informative)
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
Everybody is so amused by the "series of tubes" line that they overlook this far more important statement that actually demonstrates his ignorance. He apparently believed that bandwith problems (clogged tubes) cause an email to be delayed for days, when that obviously can't be the case. This doesn't have the hilarious memorability of Stevens' other statements, but it does a much better job of showing his substantive misunderstanding of issues relating to net neutrality.
Re:Series of Tubes (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, sure, Series of Tubes works fine. What I'm wondering is, at the level at which you can say the internet is a series of tubes, how can you say that it isn't a truck? I think trucks works just as well if not better than tubes since the internet is really comprised of discreet packets not a continuous flow.
The internet is a like a truck that you dump things on, but if what you're sending is too big to fit on a single truck you have to split it up into separate trucks that are each sent individually and if the roads are congested your trucks will show up late. The trucks may choose different routes to the destination and show up out of order, and some trucks may get in a collision and thus not get delivered at all so you need a way to account for each truck and re-ship the pieces that went missing. Some roads don't allow large trucks so then the truck's load needs to be split up onto two smaller ones. And so on and so on.
Really, the reason he gets made fun of is that if you read everything he said, he obviously has no idea what he's talking about. Series of tubes is a decent analogy by accident.
Re:Series of Tubes (Score:5, Funny)
He's an 80+ year old Senator
Age is not an automatic criteria for cluelessness
You ignored the part about him being a Senator
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please explain how job description also assures ignorance. There are ignorant people and clueful people in any job. What proof do you have that a given career equates to being able to automatically assume someone's cluefulness level about a give subject? If I told you what I do for a living, that would tell you absolutely nothing else about me, so how could you draw a conclusion that had any basis in reality?
Re:An alaskan perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good he has done that will be a crying shame.
So, you're saying... as long as he keeps the money flowing to you, you are willing to overlook lies and deception? Do you think he's clean as a whistle in all his other dealings, too?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. What he's saying is that he did a great amount of good in the first 35 years of his senate career, and then went a bit overboard toward the end.
He did a good job of convincing the Senate that Alaska was important to the nation as a whole, and that it required a disproportionate amount of federal funding (in comparison to the population) to fulfill this role. Alaska supplies most of our domestic oil, and is of considerable military importance. I don't doubt any of these things, and didn't mind my tax
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An alaskan perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
I love that all the conservatives think I'm a liberal, and all the liberals think I'm conservative.
Anyway, you wrote: "Our state certainly needs to rid itself of corruption. If Stevens is convicted it will be a sad day. What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good he has done that will be a crying shame. And entirely his fault. He should of course take the blame for his actions. But that doesn't change the fact that it will hurt the state MORE if he is convicted... the damage comes from the hurt this does to the Republican party in Alaska."
I read you as follows:
Do I have that right?
If so, you are saying, in essence, that as long as he keeps the money [benefits, improvements, etc.] flowing, you are willing to overlook [forgive, sideline, ignore, etc.] lies and deception for the greater good of the Republican party [you]. Right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a great fear that nobody else (the up-and-comer Mark Begich for example) will be able to pull the kind of strings in Washington that Stevens was able to pull -- at least not for decades.
Ah well there's the catch. So, Alaskans don't care if they elect dumb, corrupt politicians just so long as they bring in the pork for the state? I've often wondered about the electees from Alaska. Murkowski... now there's another story. He resigns to become governor and then appoints his daughter in his place?
What about the common good of the country as a whole? Your senator does not merely pass laws that affect only Alaska, but all the other 300 million of us. And powerful, corrupt politicians like y
Re:An alaskan perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
explore and develop our natural resources like oil, gold and copper
? Really? The letter next to your name determines whether you will allow things to be dug out of the ground? Or perhaps its just that adhering to environmental regulations already in place might cut into profits a little?
Re:An Alaskan perspective (Score:5, Informative)
The simple truth is that Ted Stevens has been sent back repeatedly because he is effective at ensuring that Alaskans get overrun as little as possible by the Will of the People (who live SOMEWHERE ELSE), and that when they must bow to the Will of the People From Somewhere Else, that those peolpe pay mightily for the privilege. Ted Stevens has never pretended to have any other mission in the Senate, in fact.
Dear old Ted has been an Alaskan senator for a long time, during which Federal control over Alaska has escalated. He's good at telling you he fights for Alaskan autonomy, not actually doing it.
Incidentally: most of the charges in this case are bullshit, as anybody who thinks about it for a minute can tell you; in a state that is "sparsely populated", exactly how many choices of company do you have for things like home construction? Very few. Who benefits from legislation? Likewise very few people. There are not that many people in these circles; it's difficult to avoid "benefiting" one of them.
The charges revolve around Ted getting tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of goods and services for free. Is that normal? Does that sound legal to you?
Incidentally, I live in another state where people from the rest of the country are called "outsiders," and I've come to find that use of the term correlates very strongly to an inability to see things from other perspectives and think flexibly. The more you recognize that you live in a small part of a large continuum of geographical and cultural diversity, the less you'll fall into the sad trap of dividing the world into Us and Them.