Bridge supporters (Not to be confused with athletic supporters, although they serve the same function) use this carbuncle of a newspaper as an out and out propaganda sheet where no lie is too bald-faced, no exaggeration too far out of the realm of reality for the scum writing in this rag.
Yesterday's vomitous from John Laird, fringe leftest chiefly known for using his bully pulpit to attack anyone to the right of Lenin, was all about the unheard of straw man of comparing the I-5 Bridge Waste/Loot Rail project with the replaced bridge in Minneapolis.
When it comes to the I-5 Bridge Waste/Loot Rail project, the ONLY person I've ever heard bring that situation up has been John Laird. The Columbian brought it up when it happened in a moronic and now aborted attempt to get people to equate the I-5 Bridge with the collapsed Minneapolis bridge... garbage I anticipated in advance.
The main irony of Laird's Lies yesterday was his toilet's title:
Unintentionally, to be sure. But the myths of the bridge supporters are almost too numerous to count, but among the myths furthered by Laird and his ilk include the idea that our community will benefit in ANY way. They insist on telling us that this massive waste of money will have either 12 lanes or 10, when in fact, it will only have 6 through lanes, precisely like the bridge we have now. They insist on a nonsensical figure for construction when we'll be lucky to get all of this done for twice that much. They have done practically nothing on the massive, decades-long financial impacts of sucking tens of millions of dollars out of our local economy to pay for this transportation sewer that will suck up transportation dollars badly needed elsewhere, particularly for a 3rd and 4th bridge.
Yesterday's despicable effort by Laird is all-too-typical of this newspaper's propagandists.
As for these protesters, I don't give a rip if they're Martians. If they oppose this massive, steaming pile of waste, then I support their efforts.
If this newspaper were remotely concerned about "myths," Laird and this paper would never report another word about this bridge, since most of what they write is grossly exaggerated or a downright lie. Of course, what "needs" to happen here is nothing.
Secondary to that, what "needs" to happen here is a vote of the people. I have never mentioned the Minneapolis bridge as a reason, a vision, or an excuse to oppose this unnecessary, massive and unconscionable waste of billions of dollars much better spent elsewhere. Nor has anyone else I've discussed this with. NOTHING needs to happen here.
When the chief bureaucratic bridge shill, Don Wagner, comes out and says: "he has no doubts the existing crossings are safe, so much so that he drives and cycles across the spans without hesitation. "If we don't have an earthquake of any magnitude, those two bridges are going to stay there until something hits them," he said. “The existing spans, opened in 1917 and 1958, are structurally sound.” What he's REALLY saying is there is no need for this despicable waste of money... and that's the truth regardless of what happened in Minneapolis. But then, truth and John Laird rarely take up residence in the same space... at the same time.
It is this despicable brand of one sided, biased garbage journalism that is helping to cause this rag, which does a disservice to this community with each and every edition, that certainly provides cause for tens of thousands of us to avoid buying this crap like the plague.
Additionally, I'm told, that selective commenter's have been banned from refuting Laird's garbage in the comment section under his columns on line. That speaks to the cowardice of both his positions, and those of this rank imitation of a newspaper.
And that's a shame. But when your newspaper is built on lies, particularly in an economy like this one, who could possibly want to buy it?
No comments:
Post a Comment