The federal government spends about $40 billion a year on transportation projects. Of that, about $928 million has been devoted to what's known as a "transportation enhancement" program, which provides funding for projects—including rails-to-trails conversions, bike lanes and bridges—that make cycling safer, and thus more viable as a commuting option. But as Congress gears up to reauthorize the massive transportation funding bill this year, Republicans are arguing that states shouldn't be forced to use scarce transportation funds to encourage bike commuting when bridges for cars are falling down.

"We’re doing all these things that, if we had extra money, if we were running a surplus, sure, nobody would really be complaining about it," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told the Washington Post. But, Coburn added, "We can no longer have silly priorities get in the way of real needs."

Oh yeah, being able to get to work safely without having to pollute the environment or get packed into a Metrobus or train is so, so silly.

Photo by nevermindtheend via Flickr/Creative Commons Attribution Generic 2.0 License

Bill Mallison, a friend, cast his vote for John McCain in the contested state of North Carolina (CNN initial polling projected the state at 50% Obama, 49% McCain, though Obama has now broken away). Mallison may be an out-of-state voter, but he is, at the moment, physically in the District (photo evidence above).

Mallison says he supports McCain despite the messy election cycle he's emerged from. "If you ignore all the election pandering, which you have to do in order to shore up all wings of the party, he hasn't changed," says Mallison. "He's the same politician he was in mid-2007. As bad as the Republican party's been, after Tom Delay and Rove, it's important to support the moderate wing of the party. And the moderate wing's about gone because Delay and Rove killed most of the moderate Republican members of Congress. And McCain is basically all the things that a Republican wants in Republican, subtract all the insane token positions like stem cell research and gay marriage amendments and no prescription drug importation and torture. That being said, it's not the party's time to win. It's the Democrats' time."

I, too, once voted for John McCain, for Senator of Arizona (totally won). Perhaps it was even my very vote that encouraged McCain to quench his unspeakable thirst for unparalleled international power. My bad.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

What's wrong with this statement? Let me count the ways.

Let's start with a review of the First Amendment. It reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

1.) The First Amendment doesn't protect politicians from media criticism, not even biased, mainstream criticism. It's purpose is to protect the media and the citizenry and politicians and weirdos and Bible thumpers and idiots (like Palin) from any government action that would prohibit such criticisms.

2.) "Bitter shots," like the kind that the press has taken at Palin, aren't censorship, and in this case they're not even unreasonable.

3.) If Sarah Palin's in need of a primer on censorship, she need look no further than her running mate, John McCain, whose McCain-Feingold Act placed restrictions on free political speech.

4.) Sarah Palin is a demagoging idiot. The Republicans deserve to get their asses handed to them on Tuesday, especially the ones who have stayed by Palin's side for the last two months.