Lying for Fun and Profit

[The Lone Ranger]

Yesterday, I got an interesting lesson in how effective a "lying through your teeth" policy can be.

The Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario is 82 years old and well past its originally-planned retirement date. It is the busiest commercial link between the U.S. and Canada. There is serious concern that it simply can't handle the volume of traffic flow.

So, both the state of Michigan and the Canadian government want to build a newer, larger bridge to replace it, one that can handle a larger volume of traffic.


The Canadians are so keen to have a new bridge built that they've offered to pay for it themselves.


So what's the problem then, you may be wondering. Well, the Ambassador Bridge is privately-owned. Manuel (Matty) Moroun and his family (with an estimated net worth of over $1.5 billion) have been working very, very hard to ensure that a new bridge does not get built. They've been lobbying Michigan lawmakers very openly and aggressively.

But perhaps most effectively, they've spent literally millions of dollars to air a series of ads that are just plain, unabashed lies. These ads talk about how much the bridge is going to cost Michigan taxpayers (the proposed bridge would be financed primarily by the Canadian government), how it isn't needed anyway (both the U.S. and Canadian governments disagree vehemently), how the existing bridge is perfectly adequate to handle any expected traffic flow (again, both the U.S. and Canadian governments vehemently disagree), and so forth.

But mostly, the ads seem to focus on how the new bridge would destroy Detroit neighborhoods. To hear them, you'd think that anyone who's in favor of building a replacement bridge wants to level half of Detroit, throw all the displaced people out onto the streets to starve, and burn down a few orphanages just for kicks.


If you live in Michigan, you just can't escape these ads. They're everywhere. And a lot of fact-checking organizations -- normally so timid on such matters -- have gone overboard to point out that these ads don't just exaggerate or distort, but they often outright lie.

But it's like trying to whisper to someone in the middle of a hurricane.


One of my students brought it up in class yesterday, and a discussion ensued. Most of them were talking about how vehemently opposed they were to having a new bridge built, because it would cost the taxpayers millions and would entail destroying several Detroit neighborhoods. They "know" this, because they hear it on the radio and television every single day. And they seldom, if ever, hear anything to the contrary. A quick poll showed that the great majority of the students believed the ads were essentially correct, and that the Detroit International Bridge Co. was a grassroots organization, not a lobbying organization set up by the Moroun family for the express purpose of killing the proposed bridge project.


It's not that I care overmuch about the bridge one way or the other. But it's disgusting how a wealthy family with a very obvious monetary interest in the outcome of the "debate" has managed to so completely dominate the discussion. In particular, because they've done so by overwhelming the opposition with a series of ads that consist largely of brazen lies.

[ImGod]

Couldn't the Canadian side condemn the bridge and give the owner a list of fixes to make? Like removing all the existing old unsafe steel. Make all incoming traffic be under a certain weight to maintain bridge safety in the meantime. Etc.

Canada being country and all, should be able to adequately imply a threat so that local and state politicans over here accept something for free that benefits both parties.

Imagine Michigan going to congress and the president and asking them to pressure Canada into not forcing them to get new free stuff.

[wei yau]

Canada should do exactly as ImGod suggested, even go so far as to offer to build the bridge with a neighboring state instead of Michigan.

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm kind of surprised they haven't already done that. If the voters of Michigan are so easily swayed by brazen lying from a group of people with a vested monetary interest in the status quo, maybe the Canadian government should say something to the effect of "Hey, I wonder if the people of Pennsylvania are a little more on the up-and-up."


I suppose that it would be a lot more expensive and a lot less efficient to build a bridge elsewhere. (Windsor, doubtless, has a great deal of infrastructure in place for handling incoming/outgoing freight. It would probably cost quite a bit to set up something similar elsewhere.) That's probably why the Canadians haven't already threatened to go elsewhere.

[Janet]

First off for starting a Matty Maroun is an asshole thread.

Just once I want someone to say, "If international bridges are such a money pit, where are you getting all the millions you are spending to maintain your monopoly on one, Mr. Maroun?"

Here in mid-Michigan we don't get the destroying Detroit ads because no one in Flint would mid seeing Detroit neighborhoods destroyed. We get the ones saying it will cost a ton of money that then won't be spent on schools or jobs.

Maroun actually wanted to build his own second bridge but the Canadians have refused point-blank to have anything to do with him ever again. That's why they are offering to pay for the bridge. My guess is they are sitting over the river dumbfounded at how he's getting away with gaming the system like this. It's absolutely absurd, but no one has the money to mount counter ads against him.

The only real hope is that the ads Conservative groups were running early in the campaign that said, "Vote No on everything" might sway it. It's one of two measures on the ballot where you vote the opposite of what you would expect to get what you want. (I know that's a clunky sentence but it was clunky every way I tried.)

Oh, and if you're interested, you should read up on some of the other asshole moves he's pulled. After September 11th he put a fence across a city park, claiming he needed it for security. Judge after judge ordered him to take it down and in the end the local residents had a fence-clearing day and went to the park with wire cutters themselves to remove it. He also built a huge new entrance to the bridge and pressured the city to link up to it, a move that would have harmed local businesses and residents. Again, judge after judge ordered him to take it down and he even spent the night in jail on contempt charges for ignoring it before dismantling it.

In closing, Matty Maroun is a complete asshole who also cheats on his wife.*

*According to my mom whose friend's husband used to work for him. My mom always seems to know what local business men were cheaters.

[Clutch Munny]

Canada tends to attempt caution regarding the optics of interfering in the internal politics of ally nations.

Weird, I know.

[AynMisesLibertarian]

Most of them were talking about how vehemently opposed they were to having a new bridge built, because it would cost the taxpayers millions and would entail destroying several Detroit neighborhoods.

"if they don't agree with me they are either stupid,liars and /or brainwashed"

[Ymir's blood]

Ah, a liar who profits not at all.

[Watser?]

And owes us moneys.

[ImGod]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Canada tends to attempt caution regarding the optics of interfering in the internal politics of ally nations.

Weird, I know.

That is weird.

One guy can stare down Canada.

[thedoc]

One point is that the Ambassador bridge does connect to some major highways and a railroad on the US side, the tunnel seems to be more of a residential connection on the Canadian side.

As for Pa. I doubt if anyone considers building a 20 mile bridge across the middle of Lake Erie, There are other connections from NY, But it seems that the connection through Detroit might make more comercial sense. In Canada you have Quebec city, Montreal, and Toronto all lined up at Detroit and Chicago in the US. Pittsburgh, and New York city have other connections.

[The Lone Ranger]

Yup. Detroit really does seem like the best place for such a bridge. Detroit/Windsor are the only places in the eastern half of the two countries where you've got two sizable cities right across the border from each other, and no large bodies of water separating them.

[Vivisectus]

What an excellent example of the workings of enlightened self-interest, the free flow of information and the wholesome effect of untrammeled free-market capitalism!

[Watser?]

Just build a bridge over Michigan to the next state (Ohansas or something).

[thedoc]

You could always just bulldoze everything and build a by-pass.

[Janet]

There is also a major crossing at Port Huron to Sarnia. That also gets quite a bit of truck traffic and is connected to major freeways on both sides, the 402 in Canada and I-69 and I-94 in Michigan. The Ambassador, though, has easy access to several major US highways, I-96, I-75, I-94 and The Lodge. They could make another crossing of the Saint Clair river, but there are no other freeways near it so it makes more sense to go near Detroit. There are already crossings near Buffalo, NY which is the next state to have a river crossing. I can only assume that Michigan is a more central for where their trucks need to go.

[Watser?]

How come that one highway gets a name like 'The Lodge'? Is it in a band or a reality show?

[Janet]

It's a man, John C. Lodge. Actually, all Detroit freeways are named after people, it's just that we never, ever, ever call the Lodge by it's number, which is US-10. I-75 is alternately the Chrysler Freeway or the Fisher Freeway, depending on whether you are driving South or North from downtown. I-94 is the Ford, although we use the number more often. I-96 is the Jeffries, although you don't hear that as much anymore. I-696 is the Reuther and that gets called by name much more often than by number.

[thedoc]

I believe almost every major and minor highway will have some name attatched to it to commeorate someone or something, and they will often get a rather rude variation from the locals. In Phila. the Schuylkill Expy. is often called the 'Sure-kill'. Here in the central Pa. Harrisburg area the intersection between routes 83, 283, 322, was nicknamed 'Stonehenge' by some of the locals because of the large number on concrete pillars supporting the highway. Route 30 is named the Lincoln Highway. It would be very uncommon to find a highway that does not have a name and number. In Somerset Co. Pa route SR3015 between Rockwood and Somerset is the 'Water Level Rd.', they also have 'the Mud Pike', you can guess where that came from and how old the name is. As you drive along there are road signs with the name of the road and if you watch there are small white markers with vertical letters something like 'SR581', SR653, that are the official state designation for that road.

[Dingfod]

They should just build a huge aqueduct for the water that currently flows in the Detroit River and then back-fill the river channel and pave a wide-ass border crossing, and leave the dipshit family's bridge standing high above the crossing with cars and trucks driving beneath it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

They should just build a huge aqueduct for the water that currently flows in the Detroit River and then back-fill the river channel and pave a wide-ass border crossing, and leave the dipshit family's bridge standing high above the crossing with cars and trucks driving beneath it.

I believe there may a few fairly large boats that would need to be accomidated with that aqueduct, might complicate the issue.

[Dingfod]

No problem.

[Dingfod]

No problem.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What an excellent example of the workings of enlightened self-interest, the free flow of information and the wholesome effect of untrammeled free-market capitalism!

I'm pretty fucking far from being a libertarian, but if I was to play one on TV I'd suggest that the problem here is the state government, which is both open to such manipulation, and powerful enough to prevent other private citizens from building other bridges wherever they damn well please.

[Vivisectus]

Sure, if the public had no say in the matter one way or the other, then there would be no point in lying about the impact anyway. But this is kind of the point: nor would anything keep these businesses from building bridges that have the kind of negative impact they ads are threatening, or that are unsafe. The theory is that enlightened self-interest, the spread of information and market mechanics would keep that from happening.

But here we have a case of a corporation using it's wealth to spread disinformation, in order to keep a monopoly that is not in the general best interest. It has a position of power and an advantage, and not because it is the most efficient at getting people from A to B. It could - and does! - use this advantage to keep others out. Competition in this case will not be a match to see who can move people the cheapest, quickest and safest because companies will not shrink for dishonest acts to make more profit.

We cannot count on the best information coming up eventually, because more money also means you can buy more public opinion. We cannot count on self-interest always being enlightened, because the interests of the company can be completely different from that of the general public. And we cannot count on the principle of maximum efficiency, as there are loads of dishonest ways to hobble the competition.

I think this is a decent example of that. Libertarians would probably say it isn't, because it isn't an example of something happening in the wonderful new world without regulation. In this case, the public has a say in who builds a bridge, how, and where, and this is supposedly the problem.

I think that is a very Peacegirl way of seeing things: anything that does not fit the theory is simply a case of how bad things are in a regulated world, but anything that does fit is perfectly allowable.

If what is happening now is not a good example because of the existence of regulation, then we can only have a purely hypothetical idea about complete deregulation anyway: there is not a single example of a truly deregulated society. We would have no rational way of testing if it would be a good idea. However, if examples from the real world are admissible, you do not get to disregard the ones that point in the other direction merely because you don't like evidence that contradicts your world-view.