One of these two men will be the President of the United States of America. So, since it has to be one or the other, it is best to choose the lesser of two evils, right? Wrong. The towering edifice that is our "Two-Party System" exists solely because the voter allows it to. The two Parties act alternately like private gentlemen's clubs and wings of the government, as it suits them. They act like private organizations when it comes to the nomination process, and like wings of the government when it comes to the question of why they exist, or at least why their existence is exclusive.

Our two party system is, in essence, always a vote for the "lesser of two evils", but how "lesser" are they? Let's take McCain and Obama as grand examples, let us allow them to represent their party. Obama is the most Liberal Senator in the Senate. McCain is a stereotypical Neo-Conservative. It is true that the two parties initially had many candidates running for hten omination, some of them interesting, but these two, walking charicatures of, respectively, they steretypical Republican and the Stereotypical Democrat, are the ones who float to the top. Why? Because the party-leadership decided to coronate them. On the Republican side, John McCain just so happened to win most of his victory states with 34% of the vote, becuase, conveniently, that is how the Republican system works. On the other side, the Super-Delegates have the final say, just in case the decision is not to the Party Leadership's liking, although this time around their services were not required.

So these two candidates are truly representative either of the core beliefs of those who rule the parties, or representative of what face those rulers want to project to the outside world (In my opinion, the former in McCain's case, the latter in Obama's). Now they might seem like different candidates, when taken at face value. McCain's conservative, Obama is liberal. McCain is old, Obama is young. McCain is white, Obama is not. But this is difference is only skin-deep.
On the Issues, they differ little. The both support amnesty for Illegal Aliens. Neither support hte Border Fence. Neither supports English as the Official Language of the U.S. Neither will remove U.S. troops from Iraq in their first term. They both support the current administration's trade policy(Obama has said he doesn't, then said he does, privately told the Canadian government he backs NAFTA while publicly decrying it, etc.). Neither are pro-Gun (Obama believes sad, pathetic "Rural American" hicks cling to their guns, their god, and their racism out of bitterness, McCain has tried time and again to close the gun-show "loop-hole" and gets a poor rating from gun-rights advocacy groups). Neither are pro-Life. Neither have any willingness to confront China and India as our nations greatest threats in the 21st century. Neither will really attack the entitlement system, corporate or private. Neither has any great answer to the questions of Inflation, Housing Crisis, the Trade Deficit, unemployment, Gas Prices, or the skyrocketing National Debt and Private Debt.

What are their differences? McCain will follow Bush's policy on Iran - tentative "diplomacy" thorugh the U.N., alongside sabre-rattling. He wont fight them unless they attack us, because our military is incapable of launching an offensive against them. Obama doesn't really know what he will do, but will probably fall somewhere between the actions of Bush and the words of Carter. Obama talks about Nationalized Healthcare, which is not a good thing, but it is a moot point, as he will not be able to pass any such legislation, nor is it likely to be a high priority. Democrats have promised National Healthcare for decades (it was one of Clinton's first-term campaign-promises), and yet I see no new socialist healthcare-bureucry. Obviously, McCain does not back nationalized healthcare, although a moderate step towards it (loaded with corporate subsidies and tax-vreaks) might be graced with his signature if a Democratic Congress sends it his way. Obama talks about energy, but will most likely go no further with it than endorsing the same bogus Nuclear Power plan McCain has unveiled, or one close to it. That is also a bad idea, of course.

What are their real differences, though? You may have noticed the list above is fairly unimpressive. The truth is, I have yet to see a glaring difference. Except the first ones I listed. One is white and old, the other isn't. Add in the (D) and (R) near their names, and you have the extent of their glaring differences. One will maintain the Status Quo, the other won't change a thing.

So what is the answer? Maybe you are concerned about Privacy, in which case McCain's National Security position will frighten you into supporting Obama. Maybe you are concerned about Firearms, or Abortion, in which case the fact that McCain, though not a Conservative on either issue, will be forced to act like he is one if elected is reassuring enough to net your vote. Maybe when Obama says that all of us lowly country bumpkins, clinging to guns and god and racism (sorry, "Antipathy towards people who arne't like us") should be more concerned with teaching our children Spanish than with teaching the children of Immigrants (presumably legal and otherwise) English, it is enough to frighten or anger you into McCain's arms. Maybe McCain saying he would be fine with maintaining a U.S. presence in Iraq for a hundred years, or daring the American worker to pick lettuce for a measley $50 an hour ("You can't do it!"), or calling Vladimir Putin the President of Germany or this

are enough to scare you into voting against McCain.

But you are wrong to respond that way. That kind of thinking is why you have to choose between an old, white idiot and a young, black idiot. That kind of thinking is why an average of 92% of Congressional (House and Senate) Incumbants have won re-election since world war two [1], [2]. That kind of thinking is why there is only one non-Republican and non-Democratic Senator (two if you count Lieberman, which most don't), and no Congressmen. It is why people think there is such a thing as a "Two-Party System". It is unacceptable thinking.

So what is the answer, you ask? Don't fall for it. Don't allow yourself to be drawn into the game. Vote your conscience, vote on the Issues. Don't abstain, but don't vote for either of the mainstream clowns. Vote third-party. Vote Independent. Vote anything other than the big two. Write in a candidate if you have to. Use paper ballots so your vote can't be erased at the touch of a button. Protest-voting will have a much greater impact than abstention, and in non-Presidential elections, you might even send a few Independents or Third-Partiers to washington. The two parties represent the establishment, the Status Quo, and the Status Quo needs to be sent a message. Falling for their game is not the way to do that.

I will close by including this video, which mirrors my sentiments fairly closely and inspired this post.

As you may or may not know, our southern neighbor has been experiencing near-constant conflict since President Felipe Calderón was elected in December of 2006. Initially it was reported to be unrest in the Oaxaca province caused by the supporters of his left-wing opponent Manuel López Obrador, during which several foreign reporters were killed, and the U.S. Government issued a travel warning to the region. Eventually the story of Oaxaca stopped running in the news, though two more journalists were killed there[1], and since it was not reported that the conflict ceased, one must assume it is on-going. Regardless, the violence which then spread throughout Mexico began to be referred to as a Drug War, and it is indisputable that this is what the violence on the U.S. border is, at least.



This violence has involved approximately 40 beheadings this year alone[2], and 4,000 deaths since 2006[3]. The worst areas for violence are shown, left, in red. It can be seen that this violence is centered along the U.S. border; a disproportionate amount of the violence also occurs specifically in the border cities of Tijuana and Nuevo Laredo, where the governments campaign is currently focused[4], and the violence frequently spills across the border, particularly in Laredo, Texas, which is separated from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico by a storm drain and some fencing.



In this year alone, several towns on the border with the U.S. have lost their entire police force, as a large enough number are murdered and then the rest resign. Currently, four very high ranking Police Officials have been assassinated in Mexico this year alone[5], including Robert Velasco Bravo, the head of the federal police agency's organized crime tactical analysis office, along iwth countless low-level officials and officers.



It is common for some commentators to act as though America is the cause of this Drug War, since it is providing the demand for the Drugs to cross the border to the north, and allowing illegal weapons to go south. This shift of the blame is ludicrous, of course. As regards the latter, the Drug Cartels are using military hardware, the kind that is illegal in America too. This means their equipment either came from corrupt American Officials or corrupt Mexican Officials. Which of those two eventualities seems more likely? And blaming the U.S. for it's demand seems to me to be akin to blaming the Chinese for their demand of opium[6].



If there is a cause of this lawlessness, it is corruption and incompetance on the part of the Mexican government. The U.S. government is currently discussing the Merida Initiative, a $1.4 billion aid-package to the Mexican government. Some former supporters of this Initiative have begun to rethink their position after various acts of near-criminal incompetance on the Mexican governments part, including the release of the murderer of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent[7].



Those apologists who make excuses for the Calderón government's incompetance are woefully mistaken. The Calderón government is responsible for this mess, and the best way to help him is to build our Border Fence. This is one of the easiest ways to crack down on the illicit trade across the border of people and goods, and starving the cartels will be more effective than throwing money at a corrupt and incompetant government.

The ten Republican candidates for nomination answered questions for two hours on CNN's debate earlier tonight, and I'm going to give my commentary on it here. I was very impressed in this debate with the three candidates I already liked the most, namely Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo. I was least impressed with the "front-runners", what, I believe it was Tommy Thompson, called Rudy McRomney. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain were terribly unimpressive, though each of them had at least one moment that I approved of.

The real surprise was that two candidates, whom I knew very little about, actually impressed me. Tommy Thompson said a lot of things that I really approved of, and, to a lesser degree so did former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore.

Ron Paul took an anti-war stance from a traditional isolationist position, which was interesting to see, and spoke loudly of decentralizing government, endorsing the idea of allowing states and local governments to decide on more major issues, rather than mandating from Washington, and took a pro-border security stance, as well as slightly anti- what he calls "Corporatism", with regards to corporate subsidies and the like, and he expressed a desire to achieve energy independence.





Mike Huckabee was terribly impressive when clarifying his position on Evolution, stating that what he meant in the last debate was simply that he wasn't sold on evolution, but didn't rule it out, stating "I don't know whether six days meant literally six days or a different period of time, I wasn't there" and most importantly "No matter what the case, I believe that God set all existence in motion" whether through evolution or otherwise, going on to describe his Christian views and characterizing his faith as very important to him and, most impressively, ending by quoting Martin Luther (unfairly much less quoted than Martin Luther King) saying "Here I stand: I can do no other".

He gave satisfactory statements about border security, a conservative approach to health care reform, taking a reasonable centrist approach to the idea of free market capitalism, and portraying his position as a Pro-Life candidate with the somewhat unique idea of, quote "Caring for life outside of the womb, as well as in it", because in his words pro-lifers are sometimes characterized as caring only about "Life" when it is unborn, going on to state that his position views total regard for life, mentioning senior citizens being abused in retirement homes, homeless children, securing an education for all Americans, and other such issues that one tends to take for granted, except that so few people actually talk about them as a result.

His record as a governor, specifically concerning health and combating obesity were, unfortunately, not brought up, though they contribute to my opinion of him greatly. Neither was his extremely admirable position on the second amendment, which also greatly influences my opinion of him, and is according to his website "Our founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and thats why they gave us the second amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government." And "The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all other threats to our lives and property." Here is his campaign page.

Tom Tancredo's most impressive moment was when he talked of a temporary moratorium on Legal Immigration, until "When making a phone-call you no longer have to press 1 for english and 2 for any other language", meaning basically, until we have assimilated the unprecedented number of foreign born Legal and Illegal Immigrants already living already living in this country, which was met with loud applause, I might add. His counterparts on stage, at least Rudy McRomney, acted appalled at this suggestion, believing it to be a mad fringe-idea, and yet it was what our nation did after each wave of those European immigrants the Amnestias are so fond of mentioning. The Irish, the Jews, the Italians, the Germans, the Poles, the Swedes. Each wave was about five million strong, and each was followed by a crack-down on immigration until the wave was properly assimilated, five to ten years usually. Considering that this current wave is anywhere from 3-5 times the size each of those, and has lasted continually for about 30 years, I don't think his statement was unreasonable, particularly if we do not have a mass deportation.

Tommy Thompson's finest hour was the sound drubbing he gave the democrats, making himself out to be a stereotypical Republican in a good way. Less Richard Nixon and more Teddy Roosevelt, in other words with much talk of free market theory, without giving the corporation free reign. On the note of T.R., I believe Tommy Thompson invoked him when answering the question "Can Conservatism mesh with Conservationism?" mentioning Roosevelt's creation of national parks and other environmental activity.

Jim Gilmore was generally satisfactory as regards a sound defense of Conservative economics, some good points about defense, terror and so on, and an expressed support for environmentalism, though his fixation on nuclear power was upsetting.

Duncan Hunter was, well, Duncan Hunter. He's too pro-Bush for my liking, but he admitted that this war has been mismanaged, invoking his son's two tours in Iraq and current tour in Afghanistan, and his strong suit is of course Immigration. He also sneaked in a last-minute, but brutal (in a good way), jab at Rudy McRomney, stating that they had more in common with the party of Ted Kennedy than the Republicans because Romney and Giuliani had been behind Clinton's gun control bill back in '94, and because McCain signed up for the McCain-Kennedy bill last year and the current Amnesty bill this year.

Sam Brownback managed to avoid all the prickly issues, not talking about anything very strongly, and not mention his stance on border security, piping up only about health-care and his religion, and being Pro-Life and how he didn't think the GOP could nominate someone who wasn't pro-life, pointing at Rudy.

Lastly, Rudy McRomney, who, although Romney and McCain handled religious questions well, particularly McCain on Evolution and Romney on being a Mormon, were over-all unimpressive. Romney and McCain were goaded into a bit of jostling, with McCain being quoted criticizing Romney for his alleged Border Security Advocacy, though Romney didn't take the bait and played it down. Romney's talk of optimism and looking to the future instead of focusing on problems is, I think, not going to go over well. Fixing existent problems is much more important to most voters, at the moment, than looking to the future.

McCain did not come off very well, in my opinion. He did not fundamentally change any of his views, and nothing he said was particularly interesting. He still supports the war, which most americans don't, and he still supports amnesty before securing the border, and most americans don't. He could maybe support abortion and gun-control, if he wanted, but short of that I don't see how he could manage to become less electable.

And then Giuliani, who also avoided taking up any position that could be construed as un-popular. He talked tough on Terrorism and Defense, wriggled away from abortion, and displayed his ample charisma, though coming off as a bit sleazy. As an aside, I think most politicians need to receive coaching on what to do with their hands when they are speaking anywhere other than behind a podium.

If I were to rank the candidates by how they impressed me, as well as who I support, I would do so thusly:

1: Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo

2: Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore

3: Mit Romney, Sam Brownback

4: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

Here are the links to their campaign pages:

Mike Huckabee

Ron Paul

Tom Tancredo

Tommy Thompson

Duncan Hunter

Jim Gilmore

Sam Brownback

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

As a Post Script, I missed the Democratic debate on Sunday, but I didn't approve of any of the clips I saw. I can safely say that I dislike every democratic candidate out there as of now, and truly hope that Wesley Clarke signs up this round too.

Huckabee/Paul '08!!!

This really speaks for itself.

This week I'm returning from my un-announced hiatus to talk about Don Imus. More specifically, about the media circus surrounding him, which has miserably blown out of proportion an off-comment. One comment, to be precise. Not a rant, like Seinfeld's Cramer, no, one sentence.


Lets get to the bottom of this. Mr Imus and his producer Bernard McGuirk were discussing their joint opinion that the opposing basketball team were more attractive than the Rutgers team, McGuirk saying “that’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos… Some hardcore hoes.” Don Imus responded “That’s some nappy-headed hoes…” Now anyone familiar with morning talk-show radio understands that banter is just that - banter, and that's what this was. I have heard the audio clip and found it quite similar to the sort of stuff that goes on on radio talk-shows in my neck of the woods.


I also noticed that the producer was rambling on and on about the basketball team, and Imus only added that one comment, before the producer went back to his rant. In fact the Producer, McGuirk, was the one who initially called the Rutgers team hoes. And yet it is Don Imus whose head Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are demanding on a silver platter. Why has the media completely ignored Producer Bernard McGuirk's comments? Because he only said "Hoes" not "Nappy-Headed" and is therefore not a racist? But if that's the case, why are talking heads condemning Imus for saying "hoes" and not just "Nappy-Headed"? There are feminists on air condemning Imus and this affair as sexist, not just racist, yet the originator of the "hoes" comment has not been mentioned once. I first heard the actual clip on the Daily Show, CNN didn't deign to play it amidst their mass offensives on that towering pillar of bigotry Don Imus (whose name I, and most likely all of you, had never heard before this incident).


This begs the question, what on earth is the mainstream media thinking, devoting so much time to something even less interesting than Ann Nicole Smith? When our border is still open, Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean are still in prison, our Chinese trade-deficit is still rising and the number of dead per day in Iraq is also rising? Perhaps they think the sort of sensationalism worthy only of the tabloids will get more ratings than counting body bags or badgering the Bush administration about it's many failings. Or the Democratic congress's failings, for that matter. This photo says it best. "Phone spying... Millions of Innocent Americans... The President..." And there's Don Imus, the real problem in this country!


This issue is not really an issue, in my opinion. Yeah what he said was "insensitive". Comedy is almost always insensitive. Why? Because sensitive comedy isn't funny. Morning radio talk-show hosts say dumb stuff, and if enough people were offended they would stop listening, and his ratings would go down enough to warrant MSNBC firing him. But they aren't going down. Maybe the people want Politically Incorrect talk radio hosts? Whatever the case, I would bet good money that not a single one of the girls on that team would have heard a word about Imus's comments to have their feelings hurt by, had the tag-team of Sharpton and Jackson not dragged it into the media and created such a firestorm of nonsense.


The fact is you can't censor comedy for picking on people, that's what comedy does. Anyone who watches Comedy Central knows that. This team was in the public eye, that means they are as up for being picked on as a Hillary Clinton or Mel Gibson.


I will note, however, that I was very disturbed by a lot of what I saw from the people attacking Mr Imus, specifically their views on Free Speech. The vast majority of those black leaders and assorted lefties who spoke on the cable news shows about this exposed their beliefs that speech that they dissagree with aught to be a crime. One panel consisted of Jesse Jackson, a black writer and the leader of a feminist organization, and they unanimously referred to Imus in terms of criminality, talking about punishment, about infractions, about him doing penance. This is a man who said something vaguely offensive on Talk Radio! Not Scooter Libby!


The lack of respect for free speech, on both sides of the aisle but primarily on the left is very distressing to me. I honestly cannot fathom the mind that would condemn any assault on free speach, if it was an assault on their beliefs, and then support conversion by the sword, as long as it is conversion to their beliefs. Blatant hypocrisy very much disturbs me. I will end the post by quoting Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:

"First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

Well, it's election time, and you know what that means - not much. Mid-term elections traditionally (at least recently traditionally) have a low turnout, even lower then already dismal Presidential Elections. Lazyness contributes as much as frustration with a two-party system voting choice of either the Fire or the Frying Pan, but the end result is that over 90% of Incumbants are re-elected, and considering the job they are doing that's terrible news.

We direly need change. Both parties have failed the American people miserably, and the Democrats are no better than the Republicans, in many cases they are worse. But the vast majority of incumbants have consistantly acted as Presidential rubber-stamps, voted down raising the minimum-wage while increasing their own pay every year for ten years, refused to take a hard line against China, refused to shut down the Southern Border, the list goes on.

So, what to do? Personally, I think we desperately need a third, and maybe even fourth and fifth, party because I don't like being forced to choose between Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber. Maybe we should do away with parties in general, and elect Candidates based on what they indivdually stand for, and have officials make decisions based on what they feel is right, rather than the Party Line.

Unfortunately it is too late for forming new parties or nominating new candidates this election, so all that those of us who are fed up with both parties can do is vote independant or third party (generally Libertarian or Greens, neither of whom are perfect) where possible, and against incumbants where it is not. Obviously, there are some cases, and if you are up to date on the situation in your local politics you should be able to judge if this is the case, where the incumbant does not deserve to be thrown out. Those cases are rare, but make your own call.

Certainly I don't advocate voting out a staunch Border Security advocate in favour of another Francine Busby (On June 2, five days before the 50th District of California's congressional election, Busby was recorded telling a largely Hispanic group that "You can all help--you don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.") for example, but if neither candidate seems that great, at least throwing out the incumbant sends a strong message to the new guy: get it right, or you're out in four years.

I believe that no matter the results of this election, the job that is done by this government will be so poor, that four years from now people will be alot more receptive to a third party. There's already more support for the concept now than would have seemed conceivable five, ten years ago, and that is encouraging news. Here, www.vis.org is a list of candidates running in this election, by state, which shows both the main party candidates and the Independants and third-partiers, along with campagin website where available and financial information about the candidates.

This week there has been much controversy over a Senate bill, approved July 27th of this year, called the Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, S2590 (here is a link to the bill in pdf).

The brainchild of increasingly admirable Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), with numerous bi-partisan sponsors, this bill would require that the federal government create a website search-engine, like Google, where the public may find out precisely whom the government is giving your tax-dollars to.

This is a good idea, in my opinion. It isn't perfect, as I would like instead a listing of recipients with a search function, rather than just a search engine, and it is not apparent in the wording of the bill that the website would have anything but a search engine, which means you have to know the name of the entity you wish to know about already. It may be that the provision has escaped me, however, and it is true that any transparency in government spending at all is a tremendous step in the right direction, so it is a minor quibble.

There is also a competing House bill, HR5060, sponsored by Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Tom Davis (R-VA), but the House bill only allows for making the grants databases already in place more accessible to the public, nor does it include the search engine concept. The Coburn bill, however, includes contracts, as well as grants, contracts being the more important and interesting of the two, and the Coburn bill includes sub-contracts and sub-grants as well. Over-all it is the better of the two bills.

The controversy is that the Senate bill was put on secret hold just before the annual August recess. The bill had been "Hotlined" which means that unless a Senator secrety objects to the bill, it passes without a vote. Well, sure enough it was halted right before recess by a Mystery Senator, who was today unmasked as non other than Republican laughingstock Ted Stevens (R-AK).

This, unsurprisingly, is the man in charge of regulating the internet who recently displayed his... unique "Tubes vs Dumptruck" theory, is noted for his "Incredible Hulk" tie, threatened to resign if the "Build a bridge to no-where in my state" bill was not passed, has used Bill O'Reilly style tactics when he presides over commitees, actually cutting Senators' mics when he tells them to shut up and in most cases has made an embarassment of himself whenever he opens his mouth. I'm not a big fan of his, in case you couldn't tell.

The Offices of Senators Coburn and Stevens are now engaged in a back and forth with the media, Stevens' office claiming "At the time he placed the hold he notified Sen. [Tom] Coburn and his staff and identified several questions we had with the bill. Two weeks ago Sen. Coburn named Stevens as having a hold on the bill, so we don't consider it a secret." The Spokesman for Stevens' office continued "Sen. Stevens has a series of concerns and questions about the bill. He wants a cost benefit analysis to make sure it doesn't create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and not meet its purpose... He prefers to handle things at the member to member level or at the staff level, that's the way Sen. Stevens has always operated... This wasn't in any way secretive," the spokesman, Aaron Saunders said. "We're baffled as to why it's been called a secret hold."

However, John Hart, spokesman for the office of Tom Coburn disputes this, saying "This hold was a secret, his(Stevens') office has ignored media and bloggers' calls about this issue for weeks. We had to ask Stevens if he was the hold. His staff has still not met with us."

"Senator Stevens sits on the committee where this bill was considered and never raised any objections because he skipped the hearings," Hart continued. "His specific concerns were addressed at the hearings he skipped, and his office has yet to meet with us to discuss his concerns despite repeated requests." Indeed.

Interestingly, this is not the first time Coburn and Stevens have clashed. In October of last year Sen. Coburn led the charge against the ear-marked appropriation of $453 Million for two Alaska bridges, which had been tacked on to a highway bill. One of the bridges would connect Gravina Island, population 50, to the mainland. Coburn wanted to redirect the money instead to rebuild the Interstate 10 Bridge across Lake Ponchartrain near New Orleans, a major bridge damaged by Katrina.

Stevens responded saying "I don't kid people, if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state . . . I will resign from this body." Coburn's measure was defeated 82-15 (May I suggest that before voting this year you take a look here at how your Senators voted on this travesty). $223 Million were slated for the Gravina bridge, the other $230 Million for the "Don Young's Way" bridge - which was projected to total about $1.5 Billion. Congress later caved in to the pressure of the public and retracted Stevens' money, luckily. although his state's Federal Highway budget was not reduced, and he is allowed to build these bridges anyway, using the federal money for the state budget. I wonder if this incident could have, perhaps, influenced Stevens' "Series of concerns and questions about the bill".