Ted "A Series of Tubes" Stevens Found Guilty 565
techmuse writes "According to a series of tubes sites, Senator Ted Stevens has been found guilty of lying about free home renovations that he received from an oil contractor. He faces up to 5 years in jail, and the outcome of his current reelection bid is now in doubt. 'The conviction came after a tumultuous week in the jury room. First there were complaints about an unruly juror, then another had to be replaced when she left Washington following the death of her father. Finally, jurors on Monday discovered a discrepancy in the indictment that had been overlooked by prosecutors. Jury deliberations in this historic trial have at times been as contentious as some of the proceedings The Justice Department indicted Stevens on July 29, and the Alaska Republican took a huge legal gamble and asked for a speedy trial in order to resolve the charges before Election Day. Judge Emmet Sullivan complied with Stevens' request, and in less than three months from the time of his indictment, Stevens was found guilty.'"
Hey Ted, maybe you can understand this (Score:5, Funny)
Prison, it's not like a big building, it's more like a series of cubes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I didn't think it was possible to shoot halloween candy out one's nose, but you AC, have proven me wrong.
Re:Hey Ted, maybe you can understand this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He can always call Joe the plumber.
Attribute your quotes! (Score:5, Informative)
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3975103&IDComment=45754482#c45754482 [fark.com]
You owe Decados an apology!
Re:Hey Ted, maybe you can understand this (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, that why cube farms feel somewhat like a prison?
Re:Hey Ted, maybe you can understand this (Score:4, Interesting)
Republicans don't let Republicans go to jail. For example see Scooter Libby whose sentence commuted by Bush. Libby's commutation will be upgraded to a pardon before January 20.
Removing Sevens from office is the important effect.
Re:Hey Ted, maybe you can understand this (Score:5, Informative)
This alone will not remove Stevens from office. On the (slim) chance that he wins re-election, he will still be a senator, unless the Senate chooses by a 2/3 margin to remove him (which is fairly likely).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course that does not stop the IRS from now pursuing him and charging him with failing to declare income, legal or otherwise. Apparently the US IRS does not pursue politicians when they are running for election but waits until the election is over and then target them whether they have won or not.
Brings to mind another Alaskan Politician and their custom zoned home that the sports centre built, once their run at running mate is over, it's likely they'll be the one pursued next. Why is it that the prote
I apologize in advance (Score:3, Funny)
Jail: "Just A Series of Bars" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jail: "Just A Series of Bars" (Score:4, Informative)
The sad truth is that he'll probably pay a fine and get off scott-free otherwise.
Re:Jail: "Just A Series of Bars" (Score:5, Insightful)
I can take no pleasure in the thought of an 84-year-old man going to federal prison. Were he a younger man guilty of a more heinous crime, I could see the necessity or prudence of it. As it is, I will do no more than shrug and say "Let justice be served."
Re:Jail: "Just A Series of Bars" (Score:4, Interesting)
of course they can just make him broke and have to live out his final days in a state-funded nursing home... that's much WORSE than prison!
Re:Jail: "Just A Series of Bars" (Score:5, Insightful)
Comprimising our democracy for money? There can be no more heinous crime. For a member of Congress to take such a bribe should be a death penalty offense.
Re:Jail: "Just A Series of Bars" (Score:4, Insightful)
Comprimising our democracy for money? There can be no more heinous crime. For a member of Congress to take such a bribe should be a death penalty offense.
Well, unless it's in the name of lobbying or campaign "donations". Then it's free speech.
Re:Jail: "Just A Series of Bars" (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a great "This American Life" piece on it. [thislife.org] Banks made loans to people with no money. Banks wouldn't "regulate" themselves, the Bush administration rolled back regulation. The small way that Freddie and Fannie are related to this is because investors foolishly thought that the US gov't would prop them up. That's the investor's mistake. That's the long and short of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was deregulation, spearheaded by the Bush administration, which allowed financial institutions to create "mortgage-backed securities".
So sad. Read up, sonny - it was the Carter administration.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, when did it become possible to sell mortgage-backed securities, and why did it go into overdrive around 2002, 2003?
I've heard and seen plenty of source on the radio and web that lays the blame at Bush's feet. I've heard that deregulation started with Clinton, but later heard ( which corroborated my own memory ) that they basically outlawed redlining, which is simply the refusal to make loans in certain neighborhoods, regardless of income, assets
Re:Jail: "Just A Series of Bars" (Score:5, Informative)
So far as this mess is concerned, a good deal of it can be traced back to the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Now, some argue that this law, by repealing the much-older Steagal-Glass Act, was merely bringing the U.S. banking industry in line with Europe's. Maybe so, but considering that a goodly chunk of Europe is suffering a similar meltdown it probably wasn't such a great idea. I don't really know, I'm not an economist.
Causes of the housing bubble (Score:5, Informative)
So, when did it become possible to sell mortgage-backed securities, and why did it go into overdrive around 2002, 2003?
Modern US incarnations started in 1938 [wikipedia.org] with the creation of Fannie Mae.
There are a LOT of reasons why they went into overdrive lately. Low interest rates, hedge funds, deregulation, policies [wikipedia.org] to encourage home ownership gone awry, big profits in securitization [wikipedia.org], lack of transparency into exotic securities, inadequate risk management policies at banks, and several other reasons come to mind.
It isn't a simple situation with a simple solution unfortunately. Any solution that does come however will need to come from regulation requiring disclosure of exotic security positions and limits on the ability to endlessly bundle and transfer risk through securitization. A better term for sub-prime is high risk. But everyone thought they could just transfer the risk to someone else and eventually there was so much high risk debt that it clogged up the credit markets.
Re: The Real Deal on the Current Economic Crisis (Score:5, Informative)
The Real Deal on the Current Economic Crisis [factcheck.org]
So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently [economist.com], the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working home owners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
The Federal Reserve [cch.com], which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
Home buyers [upenn.edu], who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
Congress [gao.gov], which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
Real estate agents [upenn.edu], most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
The Clinton administration [thehill.com], which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
Mortgage brokers [pbs.org], who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan [federalreserve.gov], who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
Wall Street firms [pbs.org], who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
The Bush administration [iht.com], which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
An obscure accounting rule [consumeraffairs.com] called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
Collective delusion [cch.com], or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem was they added the GST, but didn't remove all the other taxes, so it became essentially just one more tax. Implementation is everything, don't let it go ahead unless and until all those other taxes go away in the same bill.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if we could just clean out the assholes who caused this current economic meltdown that started at Freddie and Fannie
Don't forget Phil Gramm. He's in this up to his eyeballs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The people that you really have to fear from are the ones that do not hide. The ones that proudly state their hatred.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I'd put destroying the fabric of democracy as worse than rape or murder. Maybe not above genocide, but quite comparable to it. And that goes no matter which side of the aisle it comes from.
Re:Jail: "Just A Series of Bars" (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think are the odds of him getting a pardon?
I mean, really, why else would he want to have the trial finished before the election?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because if he won, his re-election chances would be very high. If he still had it hanging over his head, his opponent could use it against him. It was a big gamble, and he lost the bet, and now he'll probably lose the election.
Re:Jail: "Just A Series of Bars" (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, really, why else would he want to have the trial finished before the election?
+1 Evil genius
Nothing to worry about (Score:4, Insightful)
Dubya will pardon him on his way out
Scooter will get a full pardon too (in addition to the sentence commutation he already got)
'pubs will take care of their own, don't you worry
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to worry about (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because only one party is corrupt!
Clinton is well known for having pardoned many cocaine traffickers before leaving office. One of the first things Bush did when getting into office was block a congressional investigation into it.
Whatever you do, don't research Mena, AK [google.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to worry about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be Mena, ARKANSAS. And you would be referring to Iran/Contra, which was a Regan affair.
Re:Nothing to worry about (Score:4, Insightful)
What's corrupt about that? These people are performing a valid service to the public and are being persecuted by the government for it. As head of that government, Clinton has the prerogative to right that wrong. The only thing wrong here is that he didn't pardon every drug offender.
Not buying it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that or the government is in worse condition than we know and and the republicans want to make sure there are no republicans anywhere near government for the next four years. I don't know how else to explain the terrible campaigns being run by all republicans this year.
Re:Nothing to worry about (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm tired of hearing this nonsense over and over again.
Yes, Democrats have done plenty of wrong, but on the whole, they're absolute choir boys compared to the flagrant, bald-faced corruption of most of the Republican party.
Of course, pointing the finger in willful ignorance is a typical Republican campaign tactic as well... See the McCain campaign's distribution of tire pressure gauges labeled "Obama's Energy Plan," Bush campaign promises that he was going to do more to combat global warming than Al Gore, and pretty much everything else they whole party has done in the past 20 years.
It's a bit like a guy driving 110MPH in a 45MPH zone, and complaining to the cops about being singled out for a ticket, single HE wasn't the only one speeding, as everyone else on the road was going 50MPH... So why should HE get singled out and ticketed?
There's plenty of fuckups on both sides, but pointing out that the Democrats aren't perfect, while the Republicans are widespread and institutionally corrupt, is purely feigned ignorance.
We weren't talking about Clinton, dipshit (Score:4, Informative)
This may be news to you, but Bill Clinton hasn't been news or powerful since 20 January 2001, and you only make yourself pathetic by excusing Bush's actions by saying "but Clinton!".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing to worry about (Score:4, Informative)
Never mind.
the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a saint, only someone committed to their ideals. Which probably does eliminate most politicians, who vote whatever way the polls say.
Meet the new Senator, same as the old Senator... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meet the new Senator, same as the old Senator.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Meet the new Senator, same as the old Senator.. (Score:5, Insightful)
232 years and counting, and that still hasn't happened. But sure, the next one will do the trick.
Re:Meet the new Senator, same as the old Senator.. (Score:4, Funny)
you sound like a cubs fan
Re:Meet the new Senator, same as the old Senator.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Corruption is a problem of availability, not so much moral strength.
Separate temptation from politicians and you will see fewer troubles. It would be far cheaper to grant politicians in key positions generous allowances for the rest of their lives and to clear all expenses over certain through some sort of oversight board forbidden to have any contact with the people they are overseeing. They should be very well taken care of and at the same time, isolated from their keepers. Then let the special interests make their arguments for legislation and let it be balanced against public interest groups and may legislators then make fair and balanced choices, actions and decisions.
No more revolving doors. No more contributions from special interests. Once a politician enters public service, he should never again need to consider private sector life and would therefore have less tempting him now and in the future.
Re:Meet the new Senator, same as the old Senator.. (Score:5, Insightful)
" Among the articles of faith of "progressivism" is the theory - which never yields to experience - that you can fill the sea with enormous quantities of fresh red meat and then, Moses-like, successfully command the sharks not to devour it."
"As long as Uncle Sam continues to stock the Potomac by ripping from the body politic such enormous quantities of flesh and muscle - now more than three trillion dollars worth annually - sharks and vultures will inevitably swarm throughout Washington in a competitive struggle to gorge themselves on this unfortunate feast."
Re: (Score:3)
We don't have Rovian tactics in India, but we are good at spotting charlatans who speak about things they have no business talking about.
I was taught economics by the combined faculty of a top 20 undergrad institution and a business school ranked 6th in the world.
You are merely screaming repeatedly that I'm a charlatan with no rational counter-argument to my case.
Please provide a rational counter-argument. I don't reach my conclusions lightly, but when presented with more feasible arguments or evidence to the contrary, I do adjust my beliefs rather than cling to ignorance.
Personally, I think you're just a republican who is pissed at what I s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If everyone is saving, then someone is willing to pay interest/returns for that saving.
This is not true. Savings does not have to equate to high returns, or even private companies snatching up the deposited money. Financial markets work the same way consumer markets do. When people save more money than is demanded, the interest rates plummet.
Otherwise, "everyone" would have no place to invest their savings.
Who says you have to invest your savings? Some paranoid depression-minded people still use a good old mattress, but there are also government bonds if no private enterprise will take your money.
It is funny that you accuse me of being a republican, but you are the one making the assumption that bush made after 9/11 when he urged everyone to go spend.
The assumption he made was that everyone would take his "su
Re:Meet the new Senator, same as the old Senator.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be far cheaper to grant politicians in key positions generous allowances for the rest of their lives
Indeed. Instead, we have many people (including many on Slashdot) advocating for term limits, which force those politicians to immediately start thinking about their income post-service, and what they can do now to ensure it.
I've always thought that being a lifetime public servant, if your constituents allow it, is far better than being another revolving door politician heading from a law degree into a cushy PR position at a company paying for the laws you gave them.
Obviously Ted Stevens decided he could keep the office and get the payback, too; he should have retired six years ago, after which time he could have gotten all the house upgrades he desired for the work he'd already performed for the oil industry.
Re:Meet the new Senator, same as the old Senator.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Many Alaskans would vote for a Sled dog if it had a R next its name on the ballot. It wouldn't suprise me if they reelect Stevens - then Sarah Palin would appoint his successor. Sarah may be going to Washington after all. Somehow I just don't see her appointing Cathy Murkowski ...
Re:Meet the new Senator, same as the old Senator.. (Score:4, Informative)
Based on my moderate understanding of Alaskan politics, the smart money says Stevens will lose the election now. It was already close, and corruption amongst the old-guard republicans is a big campaign issue. Stevens had put a lot on being exonerated here.
Even if he does win, resignation seems certain. None of his Republican "friends" are going to want him around generating press, and if he decides to ignore them and hang on just because he can, they might get pissed off, which is the only way you'll see 67 votes for expulsion.
So the election looks like the popular mayor of the states largest city vs. an unspecified Republican to be named by Sarah Palin. Hard to think there won't be an enthusiasm gap there.
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
So your a Senator of one of the largest oil producing states, an you hire an oil services company to renovate your house, instead of say, a home builder.
Yea that doesn't look odd at all.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Funny)
Well, see, Ted doesn't think that Americans, whose hard-earned tax dollars paid for those oil company incentives, were smart enough to catch him. No, rather than thinking of Americans as citizens, he understands them as a series of boobs.
Slight correction (Score:5, Informative)
He faces up to five years for each count. Although most seem to agree he won't serve anywhere near that much time.
Does he have to pay (Score:4, Funny)
for his own rape kit?
Here is hoping (Score:5, Interesting)
Summary Correction (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summary Correction (Score:5, Informative)
A total of 35 years:
The jury found Stevens guilty of "knowingly and willfully" scheming to conceal on Senate disclosure forms more than $250,000 in home renovations and other gifts from an Alaska-based oil industry contractor.
Stevens faces a maximum sentence of up to to 35 years in prison -- five years for each of the seven counts.
The contractor is VECO [wikipedia.org], who wanted to build a gas pipeline from Alaska
Welcome to PMITA Federal Prison... (Score:3, Funny)
A scene a few months from now:
Hello senator. Congratulations on being reelected dispite being a convicted felon. I hope you enjoy serving your remaining term in PMITA Federal Prsion. Have a nice day.
The sad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The sad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
To win a political race against Stevens, all his opponent needs do is bring this conviction up. That's not saying that I disagree with you but the real world will probably take care of this without the need for more laws.
Re:The sad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily. Most people will vote for a long-term Senator because they have a lot of seniority, and seniority in the Senate is everything. A very senior Senator will be able to have much greater influence and be much more successful at getting earmarks passed.
In short, as long as a Senator is able to bring home the bacon to his district, a little thing like a felony conviction won't necessarily do him in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The sad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
His being so ridiculously connected, and his serving as the chair of so many committees, has made a lot of people give up a vote to him. It is funny/sad to see people give up their own moral pride to keep the cash flowing in. On another note, for all of his crap and corruption, he has also done some good for the state and its many indigenous peoples.
While I think that this is going to be a pretty major nail in the coffin of his political life, I am not convinced that it will really lay the issue to rest (it would take either a stake and some garlic or a severed spinal cord, depending on whether you tie his longevity to his being a vampire or one of the undead).
Re:The sad thing (Score:5, Informative)
Shouldn't there be some law to protect the American people from legislators who commit felonies relating to their position?
if he is reelected
Didn't you answer your own question? We already have election law and it allows us to choose to replace our criminal legislators, or, if we feel that they are still able to competently serve us, choose to return them to office.
Re:The sad thing (Score:5, Informative)
The senate ethics committee can recommend that the he be expelled from senate by a 2/3 vote. The ethics committee has recommended such things before, but nobody's ever been expelled because they all resign first.
The more likely possibility, however, is that Senator Stevens' close senate race has just gone down a series of tubes because of this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would suggest that if you are good enough for the Holy See, you are probably good enough (too good?) to run for the US Senate.
He was also a Nazi sympathizer who won his position through actively working to subvert justice to prevent prosecution of scumbags who rape little kids.
You might consider actually developing a set of ethics and morals rather than claiming the magical sanctity of one of the most evil organizations in history.
Sure, he's perfect for the Church, but let's not pretend that the Church wo
Could this hurt McCain/Palin? (Score:4, Insightful)
This pretty much ruined Ted's shot of being reelected, but will this hurt the image of political figures from Alaska? So close to election day, could this affect Sarah Palin's image? Morality? (Which has already been questioned).
So what could this do to John McCain's campaign?
(Probably already missed first post)
Re:Could this hurt McCain/Palin? (Score:5, Insightful)
This pretty much ruined Ted's shot of being reelected
They're so cute when they're in their young, naive stage. Too bad they grow up so fast.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This pretty much ruined Ted's shot of being reelected
Don't be so sure, in the Senate seniority is everything, it determines who chairs the powerful committees and who controls the agendas that come before those committees and ultimately how much money goes back to the home state. Now, Alaska is not a very big state population wise and would not get even HALF of the federal money that they currently get if they replaced Stevens and started all over again with a very junior Senator. It would take decades for Alaska to rebuild the influence that they currently h
I feel sorry for this guy (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, one has to think that a guy that can't control his household might be over the edges. That he is so much a part of the Washington Elite, that he might not distinguish between what is done to benefit the country and what is done to enrich himself. It really speaks to the accumulation of power, and the corruption that accompanies it. One can imagine that a dictator might not be such a bad thing, except eventually the accumulated power and privilege ends up warping the sense of reality to a mentally deformed image. It is kind of the story of this election, can a guy with 8 houses and 13 cars and a corporate jet and a young rich second wife really represent the bulk of the people who do not have any of these. I don't know. It will be a change in Alaska, and we will see if they can make it. If they have been broken from their benevolent benefactor, or freed from their father figure. I sure he did good, but perhaps did not get out when the good he did was not overwhelming.
Re:I feel sorry for this guy (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't. He did a lot for Alaska only because he was the senate King of Pork barrel spending. He did little good for the country as a whole. Good riddance.
WTF?!!? (Score:5, Informative)
WTF?!?! Seriously?
From same article, when asked about stepping down: "Put this down: That will never happen - ever, OK?" Stevens said in the weeks leading up to his trial. "I am not stepping down. I'm going to run through and I'm going to win this election.
What an absolutely arrogant bastard! It's good to know what the rule of law really means to the men in charge of this country.
Re:WTF?!!? (Score:5, Insightful)
... there is no rule barring felons from serving in Congress.
Aren't felons barred from voting? So, they can't be trusted enough to cast one vote in several millions, but they can be trusted enough to be a Senator?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Generally, a person must complete all the requirements of all felony sentences before the right to vote may be restored. This also applies to the right to serve on a jury, sign an initiative, or run for office."
"Each state has its own laws regarding losing the right to vote if convicted of a felony. For example, some states restore the right to vote as soon as the prison term is completed. In Maine and Vermont, a convicted
Re:WTF?!!? (Score:5, Informative)
Felons can have their rights restored by the appropriate legislatures after serving their sentences. One famous example was Johnny Cash. It is not uncommon for the legislature to restore selected rights to a whole group of felons at once - for example Florida restored rights to over 60,000 prior felons in one bill.
It is also not unusual for some states to make restoration automatic - for example, it became automatic in Maryland for all felons to regain their right to vote as soon as they have finished serving any parole or probation, on July 1st, 2007. There is a single exception for MD, felons convicted of buying or selling votes.
Usually, the right to bear arms is not restored, but the rights to vote, run for office and petition are. Rights of free association and movement may be limited, most commonly in the case of some sex offenders, even after other rights are restored.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If felons were barred from serving in the Senate / Congress, then all you'd have to do is get people you don't like convicted of little petty things which may technically be felonies (due to their positions) and you could control who was in charge. It's probably for the best things are this way. The leaders of the Senate can kick him out if they want, as that MSN article says.
Should a few parking tickets get someone kicked out of congress? I'm not supporting being a scoff-law about them, but would that rea
Re:WTF?!!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, how about pirating music?
I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Give a break on "series of tubes" (Score:3, Insightful)
Alright, I'm certainly happy to see Ted Stevens convicted. He probably deserves it. I am in fact a far left winger. I'm always happy to see any Republican convicted of anything.
With that said:
Give Ted Stevens a break on the "series of tubes" analogy. He was trying to describe saturation of available bandwidth in terms of water going through a pipe. It is a particularly good analogy given that educational metaphor for electrical systems are usually in terms of water in a pipe (or tube). All the snickering about "tubes" makes us look stupid to the community that knows about these things. Among the slashdot community it is just self-degrading. We should know better and attack him with points of merit.
To sum up...Ted Steven's tubes refer to capacity of bandwidth to carry data. He does not seem to think that the internet is a bunch of vacuum tube technology. To persist with this insult makes the critic look stupid, not the target.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The techies call it pipes anyways. Same damned thing.
I never saw anything bad about this, except for the idiot techies who laughed at "series of tubes" cause that's what it is.
But where Im at, I call it fscking dialup.
Re:Give a break on "series of tubes" (Score:4, Informative)
Ten movies streaming across that, 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. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
if you don't think thats funny, then there is something wrong with you, btw that was from the wikipedia page on "Series of tubes"
Re:Give a break on "series of tubes" (Score:5, Informative)
We (or at least, I personally) would cut him a bigger break if he hadn't made that analogy /. standards would be a ridiculous automotive analogy ("The Internet is not like a big truck..." WTF?)
A) In a speech justifying his vote against net neutrality
B) If there hadn't been aspects of said speech that actually SUPPORT net neutrality, which he clearly doesn't understand at all
C) If he hadn't, in the same speech, complained of one of his aides sending him "an internet" and it getting blocked for days
D) If the context of that line hadn't been something that even by
So, no, I really don't think he's going to get to live that one down for a while. I think at least half the humor derived from the situation is that the guy CLEARLY had no idea what he was talking about, and by some miracle managed to use *almost* the generally accepted terminology.
Re:Give a break on "series of tubes" (Score:5, Insightful)
The "tubes" comment wasn't the ridiculous part... That's just the quickest short-hand for that whole speech he gave.
While the numerous mis-statements, like calling the internet "tubes", and repeatedly calling an "e-mail" an "internet" where stupid... The fact that he thinks an e-mail from his staff took 4 days to get to his inbox because the "tubes" were "full" of movies downloading is what really demonstrates his woeful ignorance.
But what really makes it really sad, important, etc., is the fact that he chaired the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, tasked with regulating the internet, and used his overwhelming clear ignorance to justify striking down network neutrality legislation.
John McCain got similarly criticized for getting the Sunni/Shia thing wrong while making a speech, and failing to correct his own mistake.
When you have a role of responsibility regulating something, and you demonstrate an utter ignorance of the subject, it's not "snickering" to point out that fact, as often as necessary.
Re:Give a break on "series of tubes" (Score:4, Insightful)
That one misuse of the word "internet" was typical of anyone speaking faster than they're thinking in any venue. He clearly meant to say "email" and didn't realize he'd duplicated a different word in his linguistic stream of consciousness. Read a few transcripts of any unscripted dialogue and you'll giggle the first ten times then just roll right past them.
The rest of his description was actually pretty good, from an "explain it to me like i'm six years old" perspective. Which is the sort of perspective you have to have when talking to Congress and/or the kind of people who watch the news and write letters to Congress.
Talking dumber than the smart people in your audience informs more people than talking smarter than the dumb people, and anyone who's been in Congress that long will know that.
He's not a stupid politician, in other words.
Just a crooked and arrogant one.
Another reason to support term limits (Score:3, Interesting)
a series of TOOLS (Score:3, Funny)
The facts (Score:5, Informative)
Stevens: Allen didn't have permission to remove the furniture, we didn't want it, and it was tasteless furniture.
Prosecution: After Allen removed the furniture, Stevens didn't get back his old furniture but kept the new furniture, and didn't report Allen to the police. More importantly he didn't report this furniture among other things to the Senate. Also Senator Stevens reportedly wanted to gift this "tasteless" furniture to his newly married son.
Stevens: It was not a gift. It was a loan, and we hardly used it.
Prosecution: A loan for 7 years, interest free? Also Stevens sent a note thanking Persons for his "gift" and that he (Stevens) used it all the time.
Stevens:"Ms. Morris, I have not died yet."
This is NOT a YRO Story. (Score:3, Insightful)
This story belongs in the political section at best. Even better, it belongs in the "I hate Republicans and limited government" section.
I haven't seen YRO articles on Cold Cash Jefferson (URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson) or Alcee Hastings (URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings) or even recently Tim Mahoney (URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Mahoney).
Taco, if I want political BS, I'll visit the DNC/RNC/MOVEON/NRO websites, not slashdot.
Keep slashdot neutral, or at least keep the articles in the correct forum (which I block).
My opinion,
Enjoy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This story belongs in the political section at best.
Perhaps but recall this guy got his nickname during a speech about net neutrality. Stevens has been screwing with my rights online for a while, I don't see any problem with this story being YRO.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even better, it belongs in the "I hate Republicans and limited government" section.
Hang on a minute - Republicans are for "limited government"? Where in the hell did you get that absurd notion from?
Re:But Colin Powell! (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. Maybe he can join Stevens in the pen, someday.
A Senator in the Fed Pen? he's going to come face to face with a whole new series of tubes!
Re:But Colin Powell! (Score:5, Informative)
I got modded down for pointing out that Colin Powell made a 1 hour speech [slashdot.org] of known lies to the UN to make our case for going to war with Iraq? I guess now that he endorsed Obama he must be a great guy again!
That speech he gave was from a paper written [cpusa.org] by a post-graduate student in 1990. He and others knew it but he gave the speech anyway. Without that speech there would have been a lot more people against the war from the beginning.
It really is too bad I didn't make i to a +5 troll. that would have made my day :)