So. The New York Times, our national paper of record for Manhattan, just did a front-page story on the Southeast Alaskan town I live in, Ketchikan.
Here's the article. If it prompts you to log in, use "genital"/"genital".
To say that the article has glaring, basic, factual errors would be so kind to the NYT that it would verge on sycophancy. I will merely illustrate using the biiiiig pretty picture that leads the article. The caption says "tiny Ketchikan, in foreground, would be linked by a bridge to a mountainous island a mile away". Guess what. That's not a picture of Ketchikan. It's about an hour's hike from anywhere in Ketchikan (with serious hiking gear), and pointing toward Pennock Island. It's like taking a picture of a gas station on Catalina and adding the caption "Hollywood, mecca of the entertainment industry...".
But there is one actual fact in the article tho: the bridge plan is a waste of money. In fact, it is a waste of money so appalling that it suffocates the mind.
The cost estimate that appears in the article is: $200 million dollars. Of US federal tax money.
If built, the bridge will be immense, like the Eiffel Tower dropped sideways across the beautiful Tongass Narrows. It will be a marine navigation hazard and an irreparable ecological disaster. Its construction and effects will totally and permanently collapse the local economy. I am not exaggerating when I say that this project is as ludicrous and inefficient a use of money as if the federal government simply bought every adult in Ketchikan a Jaguar sports car, or simply bombed the whole town to rubble and rebuilt it from scratch for free.
I'm going to write to the congressman responsible. Let's see if I can avoid using the words "you gibbering halfwit" in my message to him.