| Number 381 | August 10, 2007 |
|
This Week: Bridges
|
|
Greetings, No room for an editor's note this week except to say that the final installments of the Democracy Series had to be put off until next week. How was I to know that a big bridge would collapse in my neighborhood? I had to make room for a couple of comments on that, didn't I? See ya next week, Nygaard |
|
I talk in this issue of the Notes about a New York Times article about civilians killed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. This week's "Quote" of the Week is drawn from that article, and my comments accompany the two examples from the Times. The Times, Exhibit A: "In just two cases [of civilian casualties], airstrikes [by U.S. forces] killed 31 nomads west of Kandahar in November last year and another 57 villagers, half of them women and children, in western Afghanistan in April." Nygaard sez: Nothing about the 31 deaths of the nomads appeared in the Times in November, when it was news. In regard to the April incident, the NYT headline at the time read "U.S. Says Raids Killed Taliban; Afghans Say Civilians Died." This stands as an example of the worst of "balanced" reporting. The Times, Exhibit B: "On a rare visit to Helmand in mid-July, a journalist encountered children who were still suffering wounds sustained in [a May 11th] bombing raid or another around that time. Their father, Mohammadullah, brought them to the gate of the British Army base seeking help." Nygaard sez: Neither the Times nor any other newspaper in the United States published any stories about civilian suffering in Afghanistan, or any stories at all from Helmand, in mid-July.
|
|
A Problem with Our Nation's Infrastructure? You Read it Here First. |
|
Nygaard Notes readers may recall that I have attempted to call attention to the issue of our nation's struggling infrastructure—including bridges—on several occasions over the years. The first occasion was back on July 2, 2004 in Nygaard Notes Number 261. The article was headlined, "Grading the U.S. Infrastructure: ‘A Discouraging D+ Overall.'" A few parts of it bear repeating at this historical moment, so here are a few excerpts: "The bridge near my house, the one that passes over the freeway, is being rebuilt this summer. All the noise and the local street detours have made it a bit of a neighborhood event. I was talking to one of my neighbors about the project and he told me that the bridge was so far behind in its maintenance that it was in danger of collapsing at any moment. Who knew? This conversation started me thinking about the nation's bridges, and more. "Few readers of the corporate press have heard about a group called the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) or their ‘Report Card for America's Infrastructure.' The latest report card put out by this collection of thousands of engineers from the public and private sectors was issued last September, and it updates their previous report, put out in 2001.... "ASCE took a comprehensive look at 12 different ‘infrastructure categories,' including roads, bridges, mass transit, aviation, schools, drinking water, wastewater, dams, solid waste, hazardous waste, navigable waterways and energy. In their 2001 Report Card, an ASCE panel of 20 ‘eminent civil engineers with expertise in a range of practice specialties' gave the United States a grade of ‘a discouraging ‘D+' overall,' and estimated that it would take an investment of $1.3 trillion ‘to bring conditions to acceptable levels.' "Last September's report was not a full Report Card, but just an ‘update.' Why? ‘ASCE did not issue new grades because the condition and performance have not changed significantly in two years.' In other words, the overall grade is still a tragic ‘D+,' the difference being that now the investment needed to address this poor grade comes to $1.6 trillion dollars. [I had no way of knowing at the time that this is less than the projected cost of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Ed.] "Bad Bridges Everywhere "It turns out that the dangerous bridge in my neighborhood isn't that unique. The ASCE gives the U.S. bridge infrastructure a grade of ‘C,' saying, ‘As of 2000, 27.5% of the nation's bridges (162,000) were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, an improvement from 29% in 1998. It is estimated that it will cost $9.4 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies. Present funding trends of state Departments of Transportation call into question future progress on addressing bridge deficiencies.' ..." Read the whole article here. I returned to the subject briefly in NN #327 ("Infrastructure, Schminfrastructure!") and #364 ("Selling People Water by the Bottle Was a Joke"). And now, here's an update from ASCE, on bridges, from their 2005 report: "As of 2003, 27.1% of the nation's bridges (160,570) were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, an improvement from 28.5% in 2000. In fact, over the past 12 years, the number of bridge deficiencies has steadily declined from 34.6% in 1992 to 27.1% in 2003. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) strategic plan states that by 2008, less than 25% of the nation's bridges should be classified as deficient. If that goal were met, 1 in 4 bridges in the nation would still be deficient. There were 590,750 bridges in the United States in 2000; however, one in three urban bridges (31.2% or 43,189) was classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, much higher than the national average. In contrast, 25.6% (118,381) of rural bridges were classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete." Read it yourself at the ASCE website. |
|
How did the media score in their reporting on the 35W bridge collapse? One week out, it looks like a mixed bag. I was encouraged to see that it didn't take the daily mass media long to begin focusing on the issue of the context within which this disaster occurred. "Crumbling Infrastructure Leaves a Nation Terrorized," said the St. Petersburg Times. "Bridge Tragedy Shows Needs in USA," yelled USA Today. The LA Times chipped in with, "Our Infrastructure Needs Help." Good for the media! Accidents are accidents, after all, but it looks like this one had a lot to do with some bad political decisions made (or not made) over many years. It's the mass media that has the power to focus the nation's attention to this pattern of neglect, and it's a good thing that in this case they have been willing. Still, although it's a good thing to read these headlines now, the fact is that we could have read them years ago, long before this needless tragedy occurred. Elsewhere in this issue of the Notes I reprint some of the reporting I have done on this issue in the past. It's clear that the problems caused by a lack of investment in our nation's infrastructure have been well-known, to those who care, for years. The decision-makers at the nation's mass media, however, are apparently not among those who care. Here's why I say that: The most recent "Report Card for America's Infrastructure" was released by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) on March 9, 2005, and went almost unnoticed in the nation's agenda-setting media. There were a few small stories in newspapers like the Grand Rapids Press, the Connecticut Post, and the Roanoke Times & World News. The Daily Reporter in Milwaukee, Wisconsin had it on the front page, and the Business Wire made it a top story, but otherwise the report fell on deaf ears. The earlier ASCE report, in 2001, got similar treatment. That report failed to make a single front page. (Not) Questioning the American Lifestyle Another failure of the media in the wake of the 35W collapse is the near-total neglect of such issues as lifestyle, urban living, or sustainability. Plans are already being made to replace the recently-collapsed 8-lane bridge with a larger, 10-lane bridge. I live about 12 blocks from the collapsed bridge (I was out for a run along the river and was sweating profusely about 500 yards downstream when the bridge went down). Many of the 140,000 cars that used the bridge every day, after all, drove—and will drive—through my neighborhood to get there. So, maybe I'm biased, but I'd like to hear a nationwide discussion of the wisdom of continuing to accommodate an ever-greater number of cars, an ever-larger volume of commuters, an ever-more-costly system of petroleum-based transit in my city. I live here. I breathe here. We deserve a nationwide discussion, including people who live and breathe in all of our cities. The ASCE—hardly a radical environmental group—actually raises this point repeatedly. Here are some words from their 2001 report that I think make the point eloquently: "Solutions to ease the increasing demands on our transportation system and improve highway conditions, capacity, and safety are multifaceted and don't always mean simply building more roads and bridges. America must change its transportation behavior, increase transportation investment at all levels of government, and make use of the latest technology. Cities and communities should be better planned to reduce dependence on personal vehicles for errands and work commutes, and businesses must encourage more flexible schedules and telecommuting." Somehow, that part about "changing our transportation behavior" never seems to make it into news reports on the recent tragic, but predicted, catastrophe. Kudos to the media for raising the issue of investing in our infrastructure. But the missed opportunity to raise the larger issue of the sustainability of that infrastructure must be considered a failure on the part of the media. A more obvious and tangible failure was the failure of the Fourth Estate over many years to report the warnings about—essentially, the predictions of—the type of disaster that we have just witnessed. This failure points to a serious problem with the priorities of the publicly-traded corporations that run our media, the corporations that appear to be more interested in serving their advertisers than in serving our communities. |
|
On August 9th the New York Times ran a front-page story about Afghanistan that was even more bizarre—and terrifying—than usual. The headline was: "British Criticize U.S. Air Attacks In Afghan Region" It was bizarre for what it revealed about U.S. operations in that country, and the terrifying part was revealed in the opening paragraph: "A senior British commander in southern Afghanistan said in recent weeks that he had asked that American Special Forces leave his area of operations because the high level of civilian casualties they had caused was making it difficult to win over local people." It's terrifying, indeed, to hear a senior commander—anonymous, as usual—say that a high level of civilian casualties was a problem only "because" it was making his job difficult. Nowhere in the article is there any hint that the reporter, Carlotta Gall, heard any military official say that there was any ethical or moral discomfort involved in killing innocent people by the dozens (hundreds?). Indeed, the murder of large numbers of innocent people appears to be seen as primarily a public relations problem, as Gall tells us toward the end of the article: "It is in fact the possibility of the population turning against them, or the unpopularity of the campaign back home, that most concerns the military, one NATO military official said." As brutal as NATO can be, even supposed allies are horrified at the barbarism of the U.S. forces in the NATO contingent (the so-called International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF): "Other British officers here in Helmand Province, speaking on condition of anonymity, criticized American Special Forces for causing most of the civilian deaths and injuries in their area. They also expressed concerns that the Americans' extensive use of air power was turning the people against the foreign presence..." Not surprisingly, Gall found "an American military spokesman" who "denied...that they had caused most of the casualties." He didn't stop there: "U.S. Special Forces," he said, "have a tremendous reputation not only in combat operations but also in training and advising the Afghan National Security Forces." He presumably means "a tremendously good reputation," which is part of the bizarre aspect of this story. British Maj. Dominic Biddick "is making a big effort to ease the anger and pain as his men patrol the villages. He has a $5,000 good-will fund and hands out cash to victims he comes across, like the farmer whose two sons were shot in the fields during a recent operation." Says the Major, "If you are genuinely caring, you can win friends." $5,000 (total?) for victims he "comes across"?! This is offered as evidence of "genuine caring" in the heart of the Empire. Finally, we read this: "After months of heavy fighting that began in early 2006, the British commanders say they are finally making headway in securing important areas such as this town [Sangin], and are now in the difficult position of trying to win back support among local people whose lives have been devastated by aerial bombing." There is a name for the devastation caused by months and years of aerial bombing. But despite the evidence provided by offhand remarks like the one above, that name remains largely unspoken in the Mainstream Corporate For-Profit Agenda-Setting Bound Media. A Lexis/Nexis database search of major English-language newspapers for the past month for the terms "Afghanistan" and "air war" reveals not a single article.
|
