AP: Unnecessary Bridge Work Would Be Expensive

Replacing Va. Bridges Could Cost $3.5B

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- The Virginia Department of Transportation could spend nearly its entire annual budget to replace every bridge in the state with structural problems.

Virginia has roughly 20,000 bridges, and 1,746 are considered structurally deficient. It would cost $3.5 billion to replace them.

VDOT's budget this fiscal year is $4 billion.

On the plus side, a bridge considered structurally deficient does not mean it is unsafe.

Kendal Walus, VDOT's top bridge engineer, says the state monitors deteriorating bridges, sometimes limiting the weight of the traffic they are allowed to carry. Ultimately, the department fixes them.

He says VDOT will spend about $150 million this year to maintain and repair bridges.

This report is about as useful as telling us what it would cost to destroy and rebuild every street that has a pothole.

Who Would Want a New York Times Endorsement?

From last night's MSNBC Presidential Debate in Florida:

MR. WILLIAMS: ...Mayor Giuliani, we're going to begin with you. In tomorrow's -- tomorrow morning's editions of The New York Times, they are out with their endorsements in the New York primary: Senator Clinton on the Democratic side, Senator McCain on the Republican side. In tonight's lead editorial, they say, quote, "The real Mr. Giuliani, who many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man."

MR. GIULIANI: (Laughs.)

MR. WILLIAMS: "His arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking."

How can you defend against that in your hometown paper? How have you changed as a man since this portrait?

MR. GIULIANI: Because I probably never did anything The New York Times suggested I do in eight years as mayor of New York City. (Laughter.) And if I did, I wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican. (Applause.) I changed welfare, I changed quality of life, I took on homelessness, I did all the things that they thought make you mean, and I believe show rue compassion and true love for people. I moved people from welfare to work. When I did that, when I set up workfare, the New York Times wrote nasty editorials about how mean I was, how cruel I was.

I think there's a serious ideological difference. And I worked for Ronald Reagan. And I remember once, when I was in the Justice Department, The New York Times wrote a very laudatory editorial about my boss, Bill Smith, the attorney general. And Bill was very nervous that Ronald Reagan would get upset that we were off agenda, because of the good New York Times editorial. (Chuckles.)

So the reality is that I think there is serious ideological differences. That probably was some of the nicest language they've written about me in the last six months.

A New York Times endorsement should be taken as a liability, at least on the Republican side. Giuliani's anecdote about Bill Smith shows why.

Winning By Losing

South Carolina, 2008:

McCain - 143,224 - 33%
Huckabee - 128,908 - 30%
Others - 158,787 - 37%

The story? McCain Wins.

South Carolina, 2000:

George W. Bush - 301,050 - 53%
John McCain - 237,888 - 42%
Others - 26,766 - 5%

The story? McCain Loses.

The difference? A decrease of 9 points and about 100,000 votes to go from losing to winning.

Nevadans Vote Forgainst Clinton, Obama

CBS claims:

Clinton Wins Nevada Democratic Caucuses

Sen. Hillary Clinton has won the Nevada Democratic caucuses.

"I guess this is how the West was won," Clinton told cheering supporters in Las Vegas. The victory was her second straight, coming after an upset win in the New Hampshire primary.

With 98 percent of the state's precincts reporting, Clinton had 51 percent support. Barack Obama had 45 percent and John Edwards had 4 percent.

CBS News estimates that Obama won 13 delegates and Clinton 12. Obama was able to take more delegates despite getting fewer overall votes because of the proportional manner in which Nevada awards delegates.

No wonder the drive by media can't understand basic concepts like the Electoral College.

Time: Ummm, Yeah, You Suck

Time's James Peniewozik writes:

Hey there, you! It's been, what, a year? I don't think I've seen You since we named You Person of the Year 2006. What did we praise You for again? Oh, right: "for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game." Remember? You wrote about it on Your blog! We cornered the world market in reflective film for all those mirror covers! Good times, those. Hey, You've lost weight, haven't You?

So I see You've been flipping through this issue. Ahem. This is a little awkward. Well, as You can see, we ... we went in another direction this year. Please don't take it personally. We still love You. But let's face it: You had kind of an off year. It's not like You ran for President or anything. O.K., a few of You did, but to be fair, Rudy was already Person of the Year once...

Today's Dumbest Headlines

Or at least the dumbest headlines that I saw:

"Non-believing US voters feel demonized"

So they believe in demons?


"FDA: Spermicide Does Not Protect Against STDs, AIDS"

Neither does Tylenol.

Six Degrees of Bad Reporting

The Macaca Post has a bizarre article on the dealings of Rudy Giuliani's consulting firm, including this most quotable paragraph:

But many of the firm's clients have never been listed on its Web site or identified publicly by associates, and two of the most controversial arrangements among them surfaced only in recent weeks. One involved a 2005 agreement to provide security advice to the government of Qatar. The second stemmed from a deal to assist a partnership proposing a Southeast Asian gambling venture. Among the partners were relatives of a Hong Kong billionaire who has ties to the government of North Korea's Kim Jong Il and has been linked to international organized crime, according to a Chicago Tribune report.

The first one... well, we've seen that before. The second needs a bit of restatement:

Giuliani (has interest in) Firm (does business with) Partnership (which includes) Relatives (of) Billionaire (has ties to) DPRK (controlled by) Kim Jong Il.

Noting that the "has ties to" link could represent another series of connections as well, anybody can probably have closer "links" by eating lunch at the Panda Express.

Six degrees of separation may be a fuzzy concept, but it is certainly a good starting point.

A Budgetary Lie of Omission

From the Christian Science Monitor, David R. Francis writes:

The latest tussle concerns a fiscal 2008 appropriations bill for three departments: Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. The difference between Congress and the White House on this is $21 billion, figures the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a Washington think tank. That's about 5 percent of all domestic appropriations, 1.8 percent of all federal discretionary spending ($1.14 trillion, a sum that includes defense spending), and far less than 1 percent of the $2.9 trillion total budget...

That's a lot of numbers. Here's what's missing: the actual size of the bill itself. You can compare the dispute to a lot of things: GDP, tax revenues, or the market capitalization of Coca-Cola - but that still omits the single most relevant percentage in the debate: 15%.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (cited by the author), the President proposed $140.9 billion in spending. The disputed $21 billion represents a 15 percent increase over that proposal - far beyond any measure of U.S. inflation. Especially with the federal government operating at a deficit, a 15 percent increase in any area should be cause for concern. Anywhere outside of government, it would be outrageous.

Oddly enough, at $146.19 billion today, Coca-Cola's market capitalization is roughly equivalent to the appropriations bill discussed above.

Unexpected Upward Revision in Jobs Raises Risk of No Recession

Gene Epstein writes at barrons.com:

Revision was the watchword in the September jobs report. For August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a statistically insignificant decline of 4,000 in non-farm payrolls, prompting the New York Times to run the headline, "Unexpected Loss of Jobs Raises Risk of Recession." Not for the first time, and probably not for the last, the loss of 4,000 has now been revised to a gain of 89,000. Imagine the corrected headline: "Unexpected Upward Revision in Jobs Raises Risk of No Recession."

Read the rest here.

Can You Say Kyrgyzstan?

Al Kamen writes for the Macaca Post:

Bit of a slip-up at the United Nations... Someone posted a [draft] of President Bush's... address on the U.N. Web site... complete with helpful phonetic pronunciations for various countries and people.

"The United States, salutes the nations that have recently taken strides toward liberty," the draft said, "including Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan [KEYR-geez-stan], Mauritania [moor-EH-tain-ee-a], Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Morocco."

"In Zimbabwe," the draft said, "the behavior of the Mugabe [moo-GAH-bee] regime is an assault on its people," and the U.N. "must insist on change in Harare [hah-RAR-ray]."

I would have misprounounced both Kyrgyzstan and Mauritania (and probably still will). Neither one comes up in conversation much, after all.

Cecilia Alvear's Inconvenient Statistics

Complaining in the Macaca Post that the Ken Burns mini-series "The War" doesn't spend enough time pandering to her particular vaguely defined racial/ethnic/cultural group, Cecilia Alvear relies on these statistics with zero context:

As many as half a million Hispanics served in World War II and earned at least 13 Medals of Honor.

Missing context always bothers me, so I looked it up:

464 Medals of Honor were awarded in World War II.

13 is roughly 2.8% of 464.

Over 16 million Americans served in World War II.

Based on Alvear's statistics, about 3% of those were Hispanics.

And here's part of the official description of the series:

THE WAR, a seven-part series directed and produced by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, tells the story of the Second World War through the personal accounts of a handful of men and women from four quintessentially American towns.

Why should we expect a handful of men and women from only four towns to represent every possible 3% subdivision of America?

Burns said at the screening I attended that some Latinos were reacting as if "The War" would be the definitive account of World War II. Others could produce documentaries on this subject, he noted. I doubt, however, that PBS or any commercial network would be willing to spend millions of dollars on another World War II project anytime soon. And no other filmmaker would receive the attention or editorial freedom Burns gets.

In discussing the criticism, Burns told the Los Angeles Times this month that he noticed that Hispanic groups hadn't pressured Latino filmmakers to tell the stories he omitted. "No, no, no -- it has to be Ken Burns," he said. "In a way all of this was an extraordinary compliment." Yes, it was. Latinos recognize that Burns is the country's preeminent documentary filmmaker. We want him to recognize us and our contributions to America.

So we should expect a handful of men and women from only four towns to represent every possible 3% subdivision of America because it's Ken Burns. With this kind of fanatical obsession, I half-expect Alvear to cry herself to sleep every night because Private Ryan and Oskar Schindler were too white.

A Party of One

The Star Ledger (NJ) notes:

The Clintons are Democratic Party nobility, associated with the economic boom of the 1990s and the most successful Democratic presidency in more than 20 years.

To be honest, "most successful" should be replaced with "only".

New York Democrat Leaves Republican Party

The New York Observer reports:

A little past 6 p.m. on the evening of June 19, Michael Bloomberg’s press office sent out the following statement:

"I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party."

Newsweek adds:

When the billionaire and life-long Democrat ran as a Republican for mayor of New York City in 2001, his conversion had nothing to do with epiphany and everything to do with expediency (as the GOP candidate, he’d face an easier primary field and could spare himself the labyrinthine nominating process he'd face on the Democratic side)... Term-limited in New York... Today's news that Bloomberg was changing his party status from "Republican" to "unaffiliated" is hardly Earth-shattering.

Since he doesn't need the affiliation to get on the ballot anymore, it's hardly even news.

The Candidates That Can’t Face Fox, Can’t Face Al Qaeda

Via Drudge: "The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda"

Approval of Congress Continues to Decline

From Gallup:

A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down [four points] from last month's reading... while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%.

Yet the "news" media won't be obsessively reminding us of the massive and increasing disapproval of the do-nothing Democrat Congress. It doesn't fit the agenda.

Congressional Approval Rating Remains Abysmal

The Macaca Post reports:

People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs that have seen little progress on [anything of substance].

...

The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month.

...

Congress' reduced appeal was evident in several categories of people. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they approved of Congress, down from 55 percent last month. That included a 12 percentage point drop among Democratic women, though support from Democratic men remained steady.

Approval by minorities also fell a dozen points to 39 percent, with a similar reduction among people whose family incomes exceed $75,000.

By region, the steepest drop was in the Midwest, where approval fell by 10 percentage points to 28 percent. Congress' highest approval was in the Northeast, where four in ten gave it a positive rating.

The unpopularity of Congress isn't new news, but it certainly is underreported.

Does Your Budget Love You?

The Washington Times has an odd piece by Donna Brazile that deserves little attention beyond its title: "Where's love in the budget?" (The real question is, why did the Times print it?)

It's the usual compendium of false claims of cuts (the increase wasn't big enough!) and complaints that the federal budget doesn't overreach enough to bring joy and happiness to every born person in America.

But something should be done about the love issue. If you're worried that the budget doesn't love you (because that is what federal budgets are for), a new campaign is needed: puppies for everyone. The federal government will supply everyone with a puppy and pay for all of its care. Then, and only then, will the budget finally love us.

Who's the Leader?

From Pollster.com, referring to potential 2008 presidential candidates:

On the Republican side, former Mayor Giuliani continues to lead the field, despite more press reporting that puts Sen. McCain in the front runner spot. McCain's stronger organization and more serious start are no doubt part of the press' view that McCain is the stronger contender. But so far the public hasn't gone along with that.

With that kind of reasoning coming from the media, we should all be surprised that they don't report on the activities of President Kerry (#2 is close enough!).

There's also an interesting note about some polls including "former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson" (also known for his role on Law & Order). At the very least, Thompson is one name that seems to go well with Giuliani...

What's Wrong With Anecdotes

Michelle Malkin has an interesting piece in the Washington Times. It seems to support two basic propositions - don't trust the media and don't trust anecdotes (I'm already getting Al Gore debate flashbacks):

It's official: The editors of the New York Times have no shame. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Times' own ombudsman, Byron Calame.

On Sunday, Mr. Calame wrote a stunning column debunking an April 9 New York Times Magazine cover story on abortion in El Salvador. The sensational piece by freelance writer Jack Hitt alleged that women there had been thrown in prison for 30-year terms for having had abortions. Mr. Hitt described his visit to one of them, inmate Carmen Climaco. "She is now 26 years old, four years into her 30-year sentence" for aborting an 18-week-old fetus, Mr. Hitt reported.

The magazine featured heart-rending photos of Climaco's 11-year-old daughter, eyes filled with tears as she clutched a photo of her jailed mom. Cruel. Horrible. Outrageous. And utterly, demonstrably, false. Climaco was actually convicted of murder for strangling her newborn baby.

...

Authorities found Climaco's dead baby hidden in a box wrapped in bags under her bed. Moreover, Lifesite reported, forensic examination showed it was a full-term normal delivery. The child was breathing at birth. The official cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation.

Mr. Hitt's main sources of info came from a pro-abortion group called Ipas. The group would profit from legalized abortion in El Salvador since it peddles abortion vacuum aspirators. Mr. Hitt's translator consulted for Ipas, which launched a fund-raising campaign to free Carmen Climaco and bring her to America. Pro-abortion groups recycled Climaco's story, citing the Times' bogus propaganda to scare up opposition to any abortion restrictions here.

...

Mr. Calame concluded that "Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect." That's too polite. The Times slung bull and refuse to clean it up. The Times' Climaco-gate, like the Associated Press' Jamil Hussein-gate and Reuters' fauxtography scandal and CBS's Rathergate, will go down in mainstream history as yet another case of textbook media malpractice.

Or maybe just a post-birth abortion.

In Case You Were Wondering...

The Washington Post explains how to play croquet:

Rules for nine-wicket or "backyard" croquet:

A full-size croquet court is a rectangle 100 feet long and 50 feet wide. Short grass provides the best playing surface. Nine metal wickets and two wooden stakes are arranged in a double-diamond pattern. The object is to advance the balls through the course by hitting them with a mallet, scoring a point for each wicket and stake made in the correct order and direction. The winner is the first side to score the 14 wicket points and 2 stake points for each of its balls. Players earn bonus shots by "scoring" a wicket or stake or by hitting another ball (a "roquet"). For the Annapolis Cup, there are 10 players on each side, divided into two-person teams.

Source: U.S. Croquet Association

I guess it's been a slow week for news.