Pork Report Exposes $4 Million ‘Polar Express To Nowhere’
Pork Report Exposes $4 Million ‘Polar Express To Nowhere’
Yesterday, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released the “Pig Book,” its annual compilation of all the pork-barrel projects in the federal budget. This year’s edition contained some welcome news: “thanks to voter outrage and a one-year moratorium imposed by Democrats after taking over Congress,” the “number and cost of pork-barrel projects is way down” after years of record pork-barrel spending.
But the news was not all good. CAGW found that in last year’s defense spending bill, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) included $209,900,000 for projects in his state. The level of spending represented “an increase of 127 percent over the $92,425,000 for Alaska in the fiscal 2006 defense bill.” Stevens is no stranger to pork — he championed the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” and is one the Senate’s most prolific earmarkers. One egregious pork request from Stevens could be called the “Polar Express to Nowhere”:
$4,000,000 for the Northern Line Extension … The Northern Line Extension will provide a direct route from North Pole (pop. 1,778 in 2005) to Delta Junction (pop. 840 in 2000), which is a whopping 82.1 mile drive on one highway between the two villages … The Alaska Railroad Corporation said, “The proposed rail line would provide freight and potentially passenger rail services serving commercial interests and communities in or near the project corridor.”
For a sense of the metropolises that are the “communities in or near the project corridor,” here is a map of the area via Google:
Stevens is no fan of CAGW or their reports. “All they are is a bunch of psychopaths,” he said in 1999. “They are idiots.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
82 Responses to “Pork Report Exposes $4 Million ‘Polar Express To Nowhere’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Hey, that’s only $1600 per person served.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:46 pmQuite the deal.
Nowhere?
It’s for the new Polar Bear hunting season.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:46 pmcome to think of it, the children of the world will be ecstatic, as Santa Claus get’s his very own train!
March 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pmRepublicans seem to have a strange desire to destroy Alaska and all other wilderness in our country and have the U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. Why do Republicans work so hard against the wishes of hunters, fishermen, and the Boy Scouts?
March 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pmStevens is probably ahead of the curve on this. The tracks will lead to future oil drilling sites. At least, I’m guessing that’s his spin.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pmIt seems to me the question for some enterprising journalist to ask is: While Sen. Stevens was passing all that cash along to his buddies in Alaska, what funding was he cutting? For instance, did Stevens go along w/ Bush’s cuts to fund Walter Reed?
The money for his friends and campaign contributors has to come from somewhere, right?
MB
March 8th, 2007 at 1:55 pmAnd, also, why is this particular stretch of road contained within the defense spending bill?
March 8th, 2007 at 1:57 pmIs it just me or has advanced senility set in for Teddy Boy?
I just hope enough people in AK wake up soon and find a sane person to represent them.
It must be quite embarrassing for them right now!
March 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pmAs alway’s, with this it may become clear he or his wife own huge parcel’s of land between the beginning and end of this praposed road….Why do we allow the past mistakes and people that make them to continue to steal from us.?…Write your representatives today and every day about your joy’s ( if there are any) and especielly about your concern’s…..We the people are suposto be the employer’s and all these representatives are our employee’s..Blessings
March 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pm#4, Republicans have been railing against the spending excesses of Rep. Stevens for a long time, especially his infamous “Bridge to Nowhere”. Unfortunately, the dealmaking that’s so prevalent in Congress by both parties pretty much gives him what he wants.
If liberals can stop some of his crap, well, I guess we’ll owe you one :-)
March 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pmRaven-its for Americans’ defense against the starving polar bears-to keep them from attacking people
March 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pm#7 - And, also, why is this particular stretch of road contained within the defense spending bill?
Because we have to fight the polar bears up there so we don’t have to fight them down here!
March 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pmHere’s an excellent CurrentTV segment called Trashing Alaska that shows you a glimpse of the kind of Alaska that the Stevens family envisions
March 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pmHey… What happened to my comment? I just linked to a video called Trashing Alaska.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:04 pmI could almost buy the argument that such a rail line could spur economic growth: sure there are few people living there now, but it could be decent real estate some day.
I’m all for spending money on building stuff because building stuff is what drives our economy (which is why our economy sucks today: we’re building less and less stuff).
But I don’t think that’s what this line is about. I think it’s about oil.
I think drilling for oil in Alaska is wrong, not only because it’s bad for the environment, but because we’ve got to stop using oil!
Americans are NOT addicted to oil; that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Americans are dependent upon TRANSPORTATION. Out economy and our lifestyles are built around fast transport over long distances.
This could be acheived without oil, but the oil companies won’t let that happen! They have too much power; too many politicians and lobbyists in their pockets.
They will go down eventually.
The question is:
Are we going to let them take western civilization with them?
Sorry, did I get a little overdramatic there at the end?
March 8th, 2007 at 2:06 pmNo Heather it was not to dramatic..Good post…Blessings
March 8th, 2007 at 2:13 pmLook around your office/room/Internet cafe/whereever you’re at right now. Everything in your sight is courtesy of oil in one way or another… either the plastic that many things are made of, or oil being used to generate electricity to run the plant that manufactured the item, or (of course) to transport that item from the plant, to the distribution center, to the store, and finally to you.
I agree we rely too much on oil, but take a look around and tell me what item(s) you’d be willing to do without.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pmActually, the rail line is needed as right-of-way for the tubes that carry the internets in Alaska. Stevens is light years ahead of everybody on this.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pmTed Stevens…
…could use…
…an enema…
…of battery acid…
March 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pmWe ARE addicted to oil.
Chimpy should know, he has an addictive personality.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pmDale,
That’s not an addiction, and most plastics can be produced without damage to the environment (so long as they are recycled).
Fossil fuels are the pollutors of our air, and the cause of so much economic and political strife.
“Addiction” is a stupid word, and it’s a way for the administrators of our problems to put the blame back on us.
That’s like telling a cave man he’s addicted to fire. Well, yeah, he’d be unwilling to live without it. Does that make him a fire junkie??
How about your toilet? Would you like to live without it? Does that mean you have a toilet-dependancy issue?
Bottom line:
We are dependent on TRANSPORTATION
We could get around using alternative fuels
The oil lobbyists are just trying to confuse the issue!
March 8th, 2007 at 2:28 pmThat’s not an addiction, and most plastics can be produced without damage to the environment (so long as they are recycled).
Fossil fuels are the pollutors of our air, and the cause of so much economic and political strife.
“Addiction” is a stupid word, and it’s a way for the administrators of our problems to put the blame back on us.
That’s like telling a cave man he’s addicted to fire. Well, yeah, he’d be unwilling to live without it. Does that make him a fire junkie??
How about your toilet? Would you like to live without it? Does that mean you have a toilet-dependancy issue?
Bottom line:
We are dependent on TRANSPORTATION
We could get around using alternative fuels
The oil lobbyists are just trying to confuse the issue!
March 8th, 2007 at 2:30 pmOops, sorry for the double post.
:(
March 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pmMost all plastics can be made from Hempseed oil.
Why do you think cannabis (marijuana) is still illegal?
March 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pmI truly hope the Dems use the extra money they will have from not spending pork to fund Health care for the poor. It is a very popular idea right now and without pork spending they will actually have much more then is even needed to assure care for every single American without insurance. Lets promote and ask our congress men and women to think about the poor in this case. Someone should start a petition.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:43 pmNote that Fort Greely - the Alaskan site of Bush’s Star Wars program - is located in Delta Junction, the terminus of the proposed RR extension. That is apparently his justification for including this in a defense spending bill.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:48 pm#21, #22, #23 (I figured I’d answer all of them :-)
Many, many items are made from oil… plastics, CD’s, shoes (at least the soles), tires, some detergents (like those used for washing dishes and clothes), synthetic rugs, polyester, fertilizers, and the list goes on and on. Care to do without all of those?
I agree that we’re depended on transportation, but transportation is itself dependent on oil… how would we make the electricity to power the cars? Or how are we going to extract the hydrogen for H-powered cars? Basically, just where are we going to get these alternative fuels w/o oil? One option is nuclear power, but the environmental lobby has effectively stagnated that industry.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pmSenator Stevens, get in line for all the upcoming Congressional investigations on corruption and fraud. I hope your heart is strong, old man.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pmWhere has everyone here been? Ted Stevens has been trying to build something like this for a while (years). Republicans are such capitalist pigs. Democrats never do this (Ted Kennedy- The Big Dig, $12 Billion and still counting). Oh, and I forgot to bitch about oil, so…. OIL SUCKS!!!!!
March 8th, 2007 at 2:50 pm#24… Ranting Tommy…
March 8th, 2007 at 2:51 pmgood question… also perhaps because they don’t want the rabble to have a lot of idle rope laying about…
Is everyone stupid? This guy Stevens is a progressive: When all the snow melts and the lower half of the U.S. is too hot to live in, the North Pole will bedeveloped and sold off using the next generation of sub-prime loans. This guy is on the ball!
March 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pm#26 thanks, Tom, I knew there had to be something underneath the whole deal…
March 8th, 2007 at 2:54 pm#27 Dale. If we didn’t drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or off the coast of Florida, we will still have shoes, CDs, cars, detergents, and everything else.
What about raising CAFE mileage standards, requiring more energy efficient appliances, or building more commuter rail systems in the U.S. All those actions will allow us to maintain everything we currently have without additional drilling.
Unfortunately, the knee-jerk Republicans, like Ted Stevens, would sooner burn down the U.S. Capitol before they would vote for a 1 mile-per-gallon increase in fuel economy standards or fund public transportation.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:03 pmAnd it still makes more sense than the money poured into Virginia hi-ways for KKK Byrd.
ROTFL
March 8th, 2007 at 3:11 pm#31….. bingo! you win this hours “Person Most Aware Award!
March 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pmNow we can understand why oil companies and their political puppets don’t want to acknowledge the melting of the polar ice regions.
When the fabled Northwest Passage is free of ice, they can drill and ship oil all year round!
Why do you think they want to go into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Because that particular stretch of coastline has some dandy harbor potential!
Oh, your prize is two free tickets to an Al Gore Climate Awareness Concert this summer, in the venue of your choice. Air fare not included.
Dale!
Nuclear power!!
Thank you!
Nuclear power is clean and efficient, and renewable. It’s the answer to ridding ourselves of our dependence on oil, and all the strife that comes with it.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm#33, I’m be willing to go along with increased CAFE standards, but that alone is not going to make enough of a difference; we import about 60% of the oil we use.
We use approximately 44 percent of oil consumption for gasoline/diesel/etc. Figure an increase in CAFE of 10% would save us only 4% of oil consumption… quite a bit (and definitely worthwhile) but we’d still be a net importer of oil by far.
I’d like to see us drill in ANWR, drill in the Gulf, and start moving towards alt-energy (Ted Kennedy blocked windmills from going up off the shore of Nantucket because he didn’t want the view spoiled) and nuclear energy
March 8th, 2007 at 3:20 pmIs it possible for prolonged exposure to sub-freezing temperatures to damage cognitive abilties, or even maybe a sense of humanity? Just askin’.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pmWhy don’t you all wake up and start seeing the real problem when it comes to global warming. It is called GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY. This is the measurment of GDP per emission. This will show you that all this micro BS you concerned about is currently meaningless unless we get China, India, and Russia to start reducing their emissions.
These 3 dirty countries produce 25% of all Global emissions and only 7% of all Global GDP. The USA on the other hand produces 25% of all Global GDP and only 24% of global emissions.
I believe Global warming is the world’s biggest problem, but we need to look to solutions that stand a chance of saving us. Currently, the EU is talking about a 20% reduction by 2020 and the USA is talking about an 18% reduction by 2012 which would be the largest and fastest emission reduction in the world. THIS MEANS NOTHING! Do you realize we are talking about roughly a 7% global emission reduction? Do you also realize that China is scheduled to increase its emissions by over 600% by 2025?
The EU and the USA could double to triple our reduction goal and it won’t matter. China alone will actually provide the world with a net gain in emissions. Add in India planning a 90% increase and Russia’s 60% increase and you can see we are currently screwed.
While We are focused on slightly more efficeint appliances and using a new light bulb, the world continues to die from Global warming because we treat it with kiddie gloves.
The USA should today work towards a 50% decrease in emissions by 2020 and demand the EU join us. Furthermore it more then time to DEMAND China, Russia, and India work quickly to at least get to the USA Greenhouse Gas Intensity. Doing that reduces global emissions by 18% over night which is huge. If they won’t work with us the world should charge a fee for every single item exported from these countries that more the pays to offset the horrible pollution they are create. This would mean these coutries start reducing or find their exports will become the most expensive goods in the world.
Stop thinking so micro and stop treating Global Warming like a minor problem people. This crowd should be more hardcore then anyone and your simply not. It is beyond wrong for 3 countries to produce just about nothing for this world and yet pump out 25% of all emissions. We need to change as well. The main reason we need to change is so we can demand the real polluters stop as well.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pmRead the report, RETARDS.
If you actually bother to read it, which I doubt any of you drooling in-breeders are capable of, you’ll find out that all but 2 of the politicians cited in this report are liberals, including, but not limited to, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pm…wrong website, ninja97, you turned left back there at the last milepost … sure gets muddy when the permafrost melts don’t it?
March 8th, 2007 at 3:49 pmRaven,
I believe he was pointing out that TP cited a report that actually shows that most all the worst spenders are Dems. TP cherry picked one of the few repugs on the list and forgot to mention it’s own party is to blame for most all the pork.
Either way it doesn’t matter. The DEM just said they promise to not do any pork spending this year. I am sure this crowd will monitor them closely and call them on it if they turn out to lie.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pmUnderstood, R-squared…
March 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pmyou are right,
and I am left,
with, well,
egg on my beak….
I wonder what Ted Stevens is smoking? In 2005 Germany reopened an already existing, but closed railroad (in Osnabruck). This cost 1.4 million a mile. Since Ted only budgeted 4 million for building 82 miles you do the arithmatic, because Ted obviously hasn’t. Or maybe he has ,and this is the start of more pork heading Alaska way.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:10 pmStevens is akin to Bush. Stubborn, bellicose and outrageous in his demands. Maybe he should ship his freight through those little tubes on the internets.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:18 pm#18 mr.ed
March 8th, 2007 at 4:21 pmSorry, I didn’t mean to step on your toes with my “internets tubes” comment.
I wonder what Ted Stevens is smoking?
Comment by KEN — March 8, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Maybe Matt Sanchez?
That could explain his obsession with ‘tubes’, especially 11″ ones!
March 8th, 2007 at 4:29 pm#39 - RR,
March 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pmI would presume that you got your percentages from this EPA report. The only problem is that you have transposed the terms decrease and increase. A decrease occurs when numberes grow smaller. An increase is when numbers get larger. In addition, the United States produces 75% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Maybe they should call it Cat Litterbox Express
March 8th, 2007 at 4:46 pmStevens is no fan of CAGW or their reports. “All they are is a bunch of psychopaths,†he said in 1999. “They are idiots.â€
***********************************
Oh, now why would he think something like that?
It couldn’t possibly be because they’ve brought his efforts to obtain federal funds for comparatively frivolous projects into the light of day, now, could it? Nah…of course not!
If you ask me, Stevens’s comment sounds like yet another example of neoconservative projection…
March 8th, 2007 at 4:52 pmMy 48,
March 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pmSorry RR, you were almost right with the 24%, the actual number is 28%(in 2006). The war in Iraq has increased our fuel usage enough to increase our drainage on petrolium resources by about ten per cent. Most of that petrol does not enter the United States as it is procured overseas.
Time to subpoena Sen. Stevens.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:55 pmJust out of curiosity, are all of you equally outraged at the Democrats who are identified in the CAGW report? Cause I don’t hear any name-calling directed towards the Democrats.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pm#47 VVFU
That’s hilarious, indeed it will be interesting to see the RW pundits slime around their hypocrisy.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pmThat guy is seriously nutzoid.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:18 pm#48 Please show me any evidence that shows the USA produces 75% of Global emissions. Don’t hold your breath, that isn’t true.
#51 I believe you. The figures I saw my have been a year or 2 older then yours. 28% could be right. Either way, it is unacceptable. We need to shot for a 40%-50% reduction so we can demand the biggest polluters like China start reducing their emissions as well.
To me, this isn’t a political debate and I certainly would discard anyone trying to pick a fight. at this point, losers that stand in the way of the people that want to fix this problem need to be ignored as we don’t have time. The USA need to reduce emissions so we can start making demands of China, India, and Russia. Someone needs to demand reductions right now or fine the piss out of China. India, and Russia until they start reducing.
We need to make the countries that have emissions intensities this bad to pay for it. We need to make sure theire goods and services are so expensive no one in the world wants them. A strong message is important and the USA cannot deliver this until we get serious ourselves. While we are not responsible for 75% of global emissions like the crazy loon in #48 said, we do have an intensity higher then many in the EU. Right now we produce around 2.118 GDP per Emissions. China, India, and Russia Produce around 0.5 GDP per emission which shows they are cleary the worst polluters in the world. If you average every country in the world, the USA actually beats the average but we need to do better then that. We should shot for a 3 to 1 ratio by 2020 if possible and we should demand China gets fined until they hit a 2 to 1 ratio.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:19 pm#51 In hindsight, the Iraq war simply couldn’t add to the USa emission output enough for a 4% global increase. That would mean that Iraq alone increased USA emissions by roughly 35% which isn’t possible seeing as though gas powered vechiles are not the primary cause of emissions in the first place (livestock are). Anyways, could you show me where you got that info. Sounds like an intriguing read none to less. I got my info from the International Monetary Fund which produces this report every year.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:25 pmhttp://www.peace-action.org/
———————————-
We give ordinary people
the tools to change the world.
About Peace Action
Peace Action, the merger of SANE and The Nuclear Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for nearly fifty years.
As the nation’s largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries, and eliminating funding for new nuclear weapons, Peace Action and its 100,000 members have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of the international movement for peace.
At Peace Action we believe…
…that war is not a suitable response to conflict.
For nearly 50 years Peace Action has worked for an environment where all are free from violence and war. We understand that long standing global conflicts require long-term solutions, and that US foreign policy has a lasting effect on the world. We are working to promote a new US foreign policy that is based on peaceful support for human rights and democracy, reducing the threat from weapons of mass destruction, and cooperation with the world community. We are against pre-emptive war, and call for a full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
…that every person has the right to live without the threat from nuclear weapons.
There are still over 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The US and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons, on hair trigger alert—ready to launch in minutes. While the Cold War may have ended, the nuclear threat has not. The only way to ensure that nuclear weapons will never be used - whether purposefully, or accidentally - is global abolition. The U.S. must lead the way to a safer world by taking our weapons off hair trigger alert, halting our research and development of new nuclear weapons and disarming and demilitarizing our warhead stockpile of over 10,000 nuclear warheads. We can reduce the threat to the world posed by nuclear weapons, but we must start by getting serious about getting rid of our own weapons of mass destruction.
…that America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.
As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. Basic infrastructure is crumbling, school are using outdated textbooks, and millions of Americans are without basic health insurance.
For what the US will spend on the War in Iraq, 26,701,621 children could have attended a year of Head Start, we could have built 1,815,194 additional housing units for the poor, we could have hired 3,493,706 additional public school teachers for one year, and we could have provided 9,772,998 students four-year scholarships at public universities(source – National Priorities Project). We believe that these are priorities that should come before war.
What we do at Peace Action…
We are the nation’s largest grassroots Peace network, with over 28 state affiliates, and over 100 local chapters. We organize our grassroots network to place pressure on Congress and the Administration through write-in campaigns, internet actions, citizens lobbying and direct action. Through a close relationship with progressive members of Congress, we play a key role in devising strategies to move forward peace legislation, and, as a leading organizing member of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War coalition, we lend our expertise and large network to achieving common goals.
Through our Peace Voter awareness campaigns, we inform citizens about their choices for both local and national campaigns, by highlighting different candidates’ stances on issues relating to peace. Our annual Congressional Voter Guide gives credit to those in Congress who voted for a peaceful future, while holding accountable those who voted for larger Pentagon budgets, spending tax dollars on nuclear weapons, and voted for wars of aggression and occupation.
Given the right tools, ordinary people can change the world.
At Peace Action, we recognize that real change comes from the bottom up and we are committed to educating and organizing at the grassroots level.
When you join Peace Action you become part of an effective citizen movement. We work hard to keep you informed through our quarterly newsletter and publications about the most important news and issues in the peace movement. As a member you can join our Action Alert Network which allows citizens throughout the country to rapidly respond to important legislation online. As a member, you can become an important part of a fast growing national movement, and help us change the direction of our country and the world towards a more sustainable, peaceful future.
Together, we have the power to change the world.
Support Peace.
http://www.peace-action.org/
March 8th, 2007 at 5:36 pm#57 - RR,
March 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm4% is 4% is 4%, not 35%. I get my numbers from the EPA report which reflects reality as opposed to targets. In addition, you admit that you are using old figures. In the meantime; Germany, France, Sweden, Great Briton, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Luxemburg and the Netherlands have reduced their carbon footprint while the United States has increased its carbon footprint. Read the report that I cite in #48. There are cross references there.
As you can see in my #51, I do admit my errors.
I often wonder whether rachel kinnardi has anything cognizant to say in him/her/its post. I get about ten words in and scroll down to the sign-off line. On the second through tenth threads, I only have to read about three words and adios amigo.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:39 pmI don’t want to address her directly — is there something wrong with rachel kinnardi?
March 8th, 2007 at 7:57 pmI usually skiip over her multiple and lengthy posts but after all this time, she doesn’t change — have I missed something about her condition?
why can’t I post?
or can I?
testing…
March 8th, 2007 at 8:36 pmAs an Alaskan, I feel I should add something.. Sen. Stevens is a friggin moron.. (it’s getting to the point where I’m feeling a little embarassed) - with every election I am further flabberghasted that this man retains his office (much like how I felt after Bush ‘won’ his 2nd term). It’s worth mentioning that Alaska is surprisingly republican - there’s a lot of oil money up here, and you know how rich folks can be.
March 8th, 2007 at 9:29 pmTed Stevens, Jim Inhofe and Pete Domenici ARE THREE FOUR-EYED repugnant-repub rightwingnut crank fudge-pachyderm ARROGANT BOMBASTIC IMBECILES and COWARDLY BULLIES–I WOULD TAKE GREAT PLEASURE IN PUNCHING THEM ALL HARD IN THE FACE AND BREAKING THEIR GLASSES INTO THEIR EYES–THEN SPLAYING THEIR NOSES, BREAKING THEIR CHEEKBONES, KNOCKING THEIR MISERABLE TEETH OUT OF THEIR LYING MOUTHS!!!! WHAT WHAM WHAM!!!! NOW THAT FELT REALLY GOOD FOR AMERICA AS WELL!!!!! TIME TO KICK THESE THREE EVIL F*CKS OUT OF OFFICE IN 2008 ALONG WITH OTHER rightwingnut repugnant-repub fudge-pachyderms of the G(houlish)
March 8th, 2007 at 11:05 pmO(pportunistic) P(edophile) party!!!!!
Politics makes strange bedfellows. CAGW is an an astroturfing organization, that has previously worked for the tobacco lobby and the Microsoft lobby. This report may say what we want to hear, but any connection between what they say and the truth is purely coincidental. I’m sure Senator Stevens’ characterization of them as idiots is entirely inaccurate — they’re probably making good money doing this.
For a little more info see http://sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=Citizens_Against_Government_Waste
March 8th, 2007 at 11:13 pmThis article is not exactly showing an accurate picture. The population density of North Pole and Delta Junction is larger than is depicted. Most people live outside the city limits; as is the case in many Alaskan communities.
The line would run between several military bases and an oil refinery and the entire area is relatively industrialized.
Building rail systems for transport will decrease CO2 emissions in the long term. Something that America needs to wake up to.
I’m a long time reader of this website but I’m rethinking my choice after reading this article.
PS- I have no love for Stevens or Republican ideals, but I do like the truth. Get it right
March 9th, 2007 at 1:38 amThe line would run between several military bases and an oil refinery and the entire area is relativelyBuilding rail systems for transport will decrease CO2 emissions in the long term.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:52 amI’m a long time reader of this website but I’m rethinking mydeals, but I do like the truth. Get it right
All the things Dale mentioned that are made from petroleum, do not have to be made from petroleum.
They are only made from petroleum because it is cheapest to do so at this time.
Plants and their oils (including hemp seed!) can be used to make every single one of those products he mentioned.
People lived without petroleum before the 1800’s, and people can live without it the future.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:30 amCan I post today?
March 9th, 2007 at 9:34 amTP, how come my post pointing out the $502,525,000 of Democrat pork was not posted?
March 9th, 2007 at 10:06 amEthan is right on the money… the ridiculous lack of knowledge that is fueling this anti-Stevens talk is alarming to me. The fact that no one has recognized that nearly 100,000 people live in the Fairbanks bureau of Alaska (Fairbanks is 18 miles from North Pole) and that a rail line between Fort Greely in Delta Junction and Eielson Air Force Base in North Pole would actually cut down significantly on emissions since military vehicles that would normally make that trip are known gas hogs really bothers me. Please look deeper into these issues before making blank statements that help no one. While Stevens’ bridge to nowhere was a pretty dumb idea, this could really help develop a growing area of Alaska. These areas are already developing and don’t encroach on state parks (only military land), so all you angry tree huggers can sit down as well.
March 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pmHacker bob, you have to remember that some people actually believe that there are some good people in congress called Democrats. Of course there are some of us that realize that both parties are champions of pork.
March 10th, 2007 at 5:44 pmRemember that Senator Stevens might just drive down that road and since his constituents will not vote him out for flagrant waste and stupidity, he won’t have to use it often. We need to vote all the Pigs out of office and get some responsible balance the budget, cut the spending patriots in office. In the meanwhile, let’s rename the members of both legislative branches - SenaPigs and CongressPigs.
Seriously: This is why every President really needs a line item veto! The freedom to pork-barrel a bill and stab the tax-payers in the process is reason enough to remove all the SenaPigs and CongressPigs from office.
They have no conscience or concern for the good of this country!
March 10th, 2007 at 6:12 pmThis so called “pork-barrel” project is to fund construction on the only highway leading to the Alaskan Capitol. Just because the stretch of road to be improved happens to be between two small villages, does not mean its not a major highway project. For example, if i said that there were plans for road improvements between a tiny town called Yucaipa and a small community called Beaumont in California you would think it was a waste, but if I further told you that it was Interstate 10, and part of the road between Los Angeles and Palm Springs, you might change your perspective. Just change the search on the google maps link above to go between any city in the continental US and Fairbanks AK, and you will see it routes you through this “Polar Express to Nowhereâ€
Not exactly Nowhere when you think of it that way now is it?
March 10th, 2007 at 6:15 pmAlaskan’s are conservative rednecks for the most part. That is why a guy as stupid as Ted is and has been a senator for 100 years!
March 10th, 2007 at 8:50 pmDelta Junction is where the Missle Defence Interceptors are installed. Currently, the only way in there is plane or highway. A rail line would make it much easier for the DoD to upgrade the site.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:52 pmIts look there planning something, maybe the society/army base of the future…Somethings going to be out there if not already is.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:00 pm[…] Ted Stevens is a fucking ass licking shit eating rabbit raping cluster fuck of a pile of crap. Seriously, he is the worst kind of person, right above serial killer…just barely above that (while human life is ‘invaluable’, $200 million is A GIGANTIC SHITLOAD OF COLD HARD CASH). […]
March 11th, 2007 at 1:00 amYour Right ….Sounds Like a Perfect Place For Another FEMA Camp..
Welcome To The New World Order
Its look there planning something, maybe the society/army base of the future…Somethings going to be out there if not already is.
Comment by Michael — March 10, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
March 11th, 2007 at 7:36 amYeah, the old fart is probably building an advance road to the oil fields all right, and almost every Alaskan is behind it because they get a cut every year, something like $1200 apiece. It’s going to be hard keeping the oil companies from plundering Alaskan wilderness with these ready made whores in abundance. I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t want $1200 to destroy my home state, but I know a lot of people from my home state would, rich, poor or middle class as money talks and people can be greedy a$$holes.
March 11th, 2007 at 1:44 pmI don’t like Stevens any more than the rest of you, but I have to say that this project is not quite as ridiculous as it sounds.
Alaska currently has one railway line. It runs from Seward, on the south coast, through Anchorage, also on the coast, up to Fairbanks, in the interior. This extension would continue the line to Delta Junction, also in the interior. The point is not to connect North Pole and Delta Junction, but to connect Delta Junction to the south coast.
I don’t think we need to be funding this with federal money. However, to present it as a worthless little railroad between two tiny villages is either ignorant or dishonest.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:41 pm[…] ‘Polar Express To Nowhere’ Filed under: Uncategorized — recar @ 5:58 am Pork Report Exposes $4 Million ‘Polar Express To Nowhere’ And guess who’s behind it… our own Ted Stevens.[news] [world & business] [political […]
April 9th, 2007 at 1:57 am