Friday, August 29, 2003

Diverting Funds. This post on Riverbend's blog caught my eye: Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent engineering company in Baghdad- we’ll call the company H. This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who’ll listen. As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn’t too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put forward- $300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc. Let’s pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let’s pretend he hasn’t been working with bridges for over 17 years. Let’s pretend he didn’t work on replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first Gulf War. Let’s pretend he’s wrong and the cost of rebuilding this bridge is four times the number they estimated- let’s pretend it will actually cost $1,200,000. Let’s just use our imagination. A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !! So which American company is rebuilding this bridge?  I'd sure like to see an American news organization or two follow up on this, and figure out if it's real, and if so, why an Iraqi company couldn't be doing the job?  I found a damage assessment of the bridge. Let's hope that campaign contributions and connections are not involved.  Let's hope that the bridge is not being rebuilt by a sub of a sub of a subcontractor, where the money trickles downward. 1:27:53 PM    comment []

The Other Bush Murders People Too. From the its-amazing-what-people-will-do department: Florida's just passed a law limiting prisoner's access to DNA information.  The Times has a story which covers this; in part, a guy named Wilton Dedge was convicted on four pieces of evidence: Pubic hair on the victim was said to "microscopically match" his. The victim initially described her assailant as 6 feet tall, 200 pounds, receding hairline.  Dedge is 145, 5' 6", and has full hair. A prison informant testified that Dedge said he did it.  The informant received a 120 year reduction in his sentence, and the informant's wife got an impounded truck back. An expert witness testified that his dog sniffed sheets that belonged to Dedge and the victim, and apparently the dog thought they smelled the same. It's reasonably obvious that the jury probably ignored 2-4, and convicted mostly on #1.  Dedge has now got DNA testing that shows conclusively that the pubic hairs aren't his.  You'd think that would lead to a new trial, or something like that.  Not in Florida!  Apparently prosecutors there don't give a shit about whether somebody is actually innocent or guilty.  The prosecutor in this case claims that the state has an interest in finality.  Well, in a perfect world -- yes, we would like for there to be finality.  My basic belief is this: Whenever there is significant new evidence, the state must grant a new trial.  DNA evidence really does cast massive doubt on these types of crimes.  The state has a far greater interest in getting the right person!  Just making sure we put someone in jail for a crime is something we'd expect from some crazy-ass country, not this one!  I mean, what the hell are these people thinking?  Why do they think it's better to just close to case?  I just don't understand it. Jeb Bush needs to stop this travesty in his state.  Other states should stop it too.  Finality should be commensurate with accuracy in the justice system.  When somebody proves it doesn't make mistakes, we can start to examine finality.  10:02:05 AM    comment []