Is there any legit reason 40% of Michiganers voted against a free international bridge?
When I was last in Detroit/Windsor around April, everyone on both sides was telling me the only reason for bridge opposition was that the private owner of the Ambassador Bridge obviously didn't want more competition. It wasn't until Jon Stewart this week that I found out that while the bridge was approved by Michigan voters, over a million people (40% of voters) were against it. Was there a legit, logical reason, or was opposition just due to ads trying to convince Michigan voters they'd ultimately get stuck with the bill despite Canada promising to pay for it?
That bridge was part of a highway system that runs through buffalo and across southern Ontario back into the US. It shortens the route around lake Erie by quite a lot. In Buffalo, just about anybody that could carry a plackard stopped construction. Everything from wildlife preservationists to people trying to protect the "architecture" in ghetto neighborhoods, to just general whacko;s.
Canada's government runs much more smoothly when it comes to construction, but what makes these bridges important is Homeland Security. My passport has stamps from several countries that would be considered non kosher. The last time (and maybe the last time EVER) I went to Canada they kept me in passport control for over an hour. They were extremely rude. They did a long exhaustive background check on me.
During most of the day, the two main bridges into Canada are parking lots.
I've been to almost 40 countries. I've been through airports that security was extremely tight. Bombay when it was still bombay, Bogota, Frankfurt after the El Al bombing, Dhahran after the bombing of Tripoli. These airports had massive security. But it's different now. Now they ask irrelevant question after irrelevant question. Twenty something twits flip up your passport pages and look over the top accusingly. Most of these idiots have never been out of Canada, or Buffalo. 200 yards away trains blow over the river without a glance. 5 miles down the river you could row across in 5 minutes unnoticed in a kayak.
Is it a proper role of government to go into competition with a successful private business? At this time in our history where we are so concerned about the rise of Socialism domestically and abroad, isn't this a prime example of it?
It's called uninformed voters swayed by $30M of false advertising by the owner of the Ambassador Bridge. IMO, the local media failed miserably in allowing these commercials with blatant lies on the air.
Freedom of the press doesn't mean a whole lot when the press does not fulfill it's civil duty.