Mallard Fillmore Sept 1-6, or, This Week In DS
Cindy Kandolf
stretching one joke out for a whole week (even the Sunday strip is on
the same theme). And, since it's Back To School week in the four US
school districts still following traditional schedules, teachers are
an easy target. Unfortunately for Tinsley, it seems he put about as
much effort into his own education as he does into his comic strip,
and of course it's all his teachers' fault...
Monday's strip:
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080901&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
"There are no right or wrong answers - just be creative!"
Math and science have right or wrong answers. English, history,
foreign languages, art and music appreciation... well, it's an
exagerration to say there are *no* wrong answers. Alien invasions did
not cause World War II, Beethoven could not have been influenced by
the Beatles, and "Ich liebe dich" is not how you ask for directions to
the train station. But often there is not a single correct
answer. "Write a newspaper editorial on the topic of uniforms in
schools" - the teacher doesn't (or shouldn't) care if you're for 'em
or agin 'em, just whether you can persuasively argue your
case. "Discuss the causes of the fall of the Western Roman Empire" -
greater scholars than these teenagers don't agree on what was most
important, so let the kids explore the idea, as long as their answers
show they've understood the material.
Tuesday's strip:
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080902&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
"I could show you how to solve that problem, but you'll learn more if
you figure it out on your own!"
Um, yeah? If my son comes home from school with a word problem in his
math homework, will he learn better if I pick through it and write out
the equation for him? Or if he, y'know, figures it out on his own? I
might give hints, but I would be doing him no favors if I showed him
exactly what to do.
Wednesday's strip:
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080903&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
"I'm not going to make you memorize a bunch of dull, dry dates and places."
Good. Because that's not the point of learning history. You can look
up exactly when the French and Indian War ended - spend your study
time considering what happened during and after the war that helped
lead to the American Revolution.
Thursday's strip:
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080904&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
"Real communism has never been tried."
This usually means "I've read the Communist Manifesto and *you
haven't*." As it happens, I had a history teacher who made us read
it. (It's not terribly long.) And it's true that what happened in the
Soviet Union etc is not much like what's described there. This is
probably because ideas like "From each according to his abilities, to
each according to his needs" aren't terribly, y'know, *realistic* ways
to govern behavior in large groups. Though it sounds a lot like how
families are run - the two-year-old's needs are met even though her
only chores are to pick up her toys, make her bed, and help empty the
trash cans, because it simply isn't fair to expect her to earn money
like Mom and Dad or load up the dishwasher like her older brother.
I do agree that the sentence is nonsense, though. It *has* been tried,
just not at the national level.
Friday's strip:
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080905&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
"Well, what do *you* think it means?"
Riddle me this, Tinsley: Which is a more valuable skill for children
to learn in school? Asking an adult for the answer all the time? Or
trying to figure out the meaning of a word from context, and then
*looking it up in the dictionary* to discover if that guess was right
or wrong?
Here at Casaflodnak we encourage kids to do the second.
And Saturday's strip:
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080906&name=Mallard_Fillmore>
"That's sooooo ironic!"
Um, wait. Has a teacher ever said that? With that "sooooo" bit even?
It sounds more like something out of Moon Unit's monologue from the
song "Valley Girl".
However, irony is, y'know, like, sometimes used as a literary device?
And it would be, like, totally appropriate for a teacher to talk about
it? Especially if she, like, taught English Literature or something?
Although I can totally get behind it being, like, inappropriate for,
y'know, trig or biology class?
If, hoever, teachers use it in the Alanis Morisette way, or use
"irony" and "sarcasm" as synonyms, I am of course in favor of public
flogging.
*phew* I feel better now.
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
flodmail: ci...@nethelp.no flodhome: Bærum, Norway
flodweb: http://www.flodnak.com/
Olz
<text remove for space reasons>
Bravo!
Pat O'Neill
have the world's easiest jobs, that they are grossly overpaid, and
have far too much influence in politics, etc.
But if you asked him if he'd become a teacher, his answer would
undoubtedly be "no". You have to wonder why he'd turn down such an
easy, overpaid, influential job....
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Cindy Kandolf <ci...@bizet.nethelp.no> wrote:
> No great surprise that Mr Tinsley is using his standard technique of
> stretching one joke out for a whole week (even the Sunday strip is
> on the same theme).
The arc got on my nerves, too, and -- with the reservation that I
disagree strongly on the value of learning dates to keep historical
events in context while learning about them (as opposed to just
looking them up later when you're curious, or something) -- I
appreciate the energy you took to lay all Tinsley's underlying
assumptions bare.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter B. Steiger
> If, hoever, teachers use it in the Alanis Morisette way, or use "irony"
> and "sarcasm" as synonyms, I am of course in favor of public flogging.
I still carry a deep bitterness over the use of the word "irony" in an
English class nearly thirty years ago.
The teacher had asked for a definition, and not surprisingly nobody
volunteered the answer. I was the self-proclaimed geek and always
answered before the others, so I tried to hold back and give everyone
else a chance. But when nobody had a definition for "irony" I couldn't
stand it any longer and shot my hand up. I knew irony - hell, it was my
second language (after sarcasm).
All eyes looked expectantly at me, and I said... uh... nothing. At the
moment of truth, I realized the reason we have the word "irony" is there
aren't any other words to describe the concept. It was, you know, ironic
that the class brain couldn't come up with a simple definition. So I
fumbled, and in the meantime some other kid had taken the time to look
the word up in our textbook and read the definition given: "To say one
thing and mean another." Teacher praised him while I fumed silently to
myself - that's not irony, that's lying! Or sarcasm! But I still didn't
have a better way to explain the term, so I could only sit back and spend
the next three decades building up a bitter rage over my lost glory.
Oh, what I wouldn't give for a time machine...
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing
zeroes where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Tove Momerathsson
> No great surprise that Mr Tinsley is using his standard technique of
> stretching one joke out for a whole week (even the Sunday strip is on
> the same theme). And, since it's Back To School week in the four US
> school districts still following traditional schedules, teachers are
> an easy target. Unfortunately for Tinsley, it seems he put about as
> much effort into his own education as he does into his comic strip,
> and of course it's all his teachers' fault...
[snip wonderful point-by-point DS rebuttal (duckbuttal?)
> *phew* I feel better now.
>
> - Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
> flodmail: ci...@nethelp.no flodhome: Bærum, Norway
> flodweb: http://www.flodnak.com/
And so do I.
Thank you.
Tove
Mark Steese
90cc-aa5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Tinsley hardly seems worth defending, but it is a bit silly to wonder why
he might say "no" to a question he hasn't even been asked. Reminds me of
the old Sesame Street sketch where Ernie gets enraged over the possibility
that his neighbor might not let him borrow a lawnmower.
--
Mark Steese
=======================
The disturbed eyes rise,
furtive, foiled, dissatisfied
from meditation on the true
and insignificant.
LNER...@juno.com
Possible and realistic answer: The work environment, specifically the
co-workers.
If you want to put him on the spot as a hypocrite, ask him if he'd be
a teacher at some independent "magnet" or private school that doesn't
promote the environment he exaggeratedly lampoons in the strip.
aemeijers
Tinsley must be pulling his stereotypes from the mass media, not
personal research. I happen to be from the town he lives in, and it has
one of the better school systems in the state, with a very high
percentage that go on to college. Good tax base, and the local
corporations are regular benefactors to the system.
--
aem sends...
Dann
news:85od31p...@bizet.nethelp.no.
I want to preface this by noting that I agree that this week's strips
were just plain lame. I was cringing all week long waiting for something
along the lines of what you posted.
> Thursday's strip:
> <http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080904&name=Mal
> lard_Fillmore> "Real communism has never been tried."
>
> This usually means "I've read the Communist Manifesto and *you
> haven't*." As it happens, I had a history teacher who made us read
> it. (It's not terribly long.) And it's true that what happened in the
> Soviet Union etc is not much like what's described there. This is
> probably because ideas like "From each according to his abilities, to
> each according to his needs" aren't terribly, y'know, *realistic* ways
> to govern behavior in large groups. Though it sounds a lot like how
> families are run - the two-year-old's needs are met even though her
> only chores are to pick up her toys, make her bed, and help empty the
> trash cans, because it simply isn't fair to expect her to earn money
> like Mom and Dad or load up the dishwasher like her older brother.
>
> I do agree that the sentence is nonsense, though. It *has* been tried,
> just not at the national level.
That isn't his point. At least, when channeling my inner Tinsley, I'm
reasonably certain that isn't his point.
His point is that when people that believe in economic [as well as
social] freedom point out the failures of socialist/communist systems,
the common rejoinder is that those systems failed because they were
really socialist/communist systems. Such people will typically assert
that communism "hasn't been tried".
Nonsense. It has been tried and at the national level, too. In every
nation where socialism/communism has been given free rein [reign, too],
it has inevitably resulted in shortages of the things people want/need
and surpluses of the things no one wants/needs. Economically the problem
is that government central planners regardless of degree or pedigree are
wholly unable to predict the needs, wants, and desires of a given
population.
With the elimination of the profit incentive also comes the elimination
of the motivation to meet those needs, wants, and desires.
I would also point out that in most families that there is some sort of
incentive....many times financial....for a young squab or squabette to
pick up their room, make their bed, and perform other minor chores to
help out around the house. "No work = no dinner" is more correctly
categorized as a free market approach than a communist one.
Now of course this discussion is more likely to happen at the
college/university level of education and the week's theme seemed to me
to be pointed at K-12 education. Therefore it is nonsense...just not for
the reason you pointed out. IMO.
> Friday's strip:
> <http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080905&name=Mal
> lard_Fillmore> "Well, what do *you* think it means?"
>
> Riddle me this, Tinsley: Which is a more valuable skill for children
> to learn in school? Asking an adult for the answer all the time? Or
> trying to figure out the meaning of a word from context, and then
> *looking it up in the dictionary* to discover if that guess was right
> or wrong?
My first thought wasn't a dictionary exercise but more of a
logical/scientific reasoning exercise. Sort of along the lines of "what
do you think it means if the chemical turns blue when it is exposed to
oxygen?"
The phrase "what do you think it means" is a perfectly valid means of
getting a student to express their thought process.
In either case, the strip was lame.
Your post was an otherwise nice bit of fsking.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
racs...@gmail.com
>
> Tinsley must be pulling his stereotypes from the mass media, not
> personal research. I happen to be from the town he lives in, and it has
> one of the better school systems in the state, with a very high
> percentage that go on to college. Good tax base, and the local
> corporations are regular benefactors to the system.
If you ask people, "How are the schools doing?" a large number will
talk about how lousy they are, more or less along the lines to which
Tinsley hews. If you ask them, "What do you think of your local
school?" a large number will say it's quite good.
This isn't the only case in which people cling to the certainty of a
well-circulated point of view, as opposed to trusting their own
experience, but it's a striking example.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
aemeijers
I guess, that absent a standardized measuring stick that everyone agrees
on, it will always be that way. Test scores and US News rankings aside,
one has to go by other visible indicators. The town where I spent most
of my youth, and where Tinsley lives, has a consolidated county-wide
school system, with no ready alternatives other than the Catholic
schools (only through junior high). The town where I am now, only
slightly larger, has a balkanized school system, with 4 separate systems
and high schools, plus a Catholic system that includes a high school.
Property values show a close correlation with which school system the
house is located in, for similar houses and neighborhoods. And in the
20-plus years I have been here, almost no new houses have been built in
the area covered by the city school system (the oldest), while all the
suburban systems have dozens of beige subdivisions. Part of that is due
to available land, of course, but there is a definite pecking order of
perceived quality of the schools- one of the reasons I bought the house
I did, even though I don't have kids, looking at eventual resale.
--
aem sends...
Dann
news:Xns9B11E767DE887d...@74.209.136.92.
> His point is that when people that believe in economic [as well as
> social] freedom point out the failures of socialist/communist systems,
> the common rejoinder is that those systems failed because they were
> really socialist/communist systems.
....failed because they WEREN'T really socialist/communist systems.
Oops.
racs...@gmail.com
> On 06 Sep 2008, Dann said the following innews:Xns9B11E767DE887d...@74.209.136.92.
>
> > His point is that when people that believe in economic [as well as
> > social] freedom point out the failures of socialist/communist systems,
> > the common rejoinder is that those systems failed because they were
> > really socialist/communist systems.
>
> ....failed because they WEREN'T really socialist/communist systems.
That's the OTHER reason they failed.
I'd have to check the focus groups before attempting to rank those
reasons, of course.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
James Nicoll
pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org <racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>If you ask people, "How are the schools doing?" a large number will
>talk about how lousy they are, more or less along the lines to which
>Tinsley hews. If you ask them, "What do you think of your local
>school?" a large number will say it's quite good.
Although at my high school's recent anniversary, two of the
people whose pre-high school experience involved the same Catholic
school compared notes on which of their fellow alumi had escaped
a tour of prison. They both thought the school in question was
beyond dire. This was a small town school (I was lucky enough to
be one of the last people to attend a two-room school house, myself).
I know people from the urban versions of that scholl and they
liked their school but thought the members of the board were corrupt
and self-serving, with the same views towards open discussion of
their policies as any tin-pot dictator (or Stephen Harper). Oddly
enough, one of the worst of them was caught abusing his official
credit card but although he was convicted the judge let him go so
as not to screw up the fellow's next position, which was a very
similar job in the US. Where, I understand, he was soon up on
very similar charges. The system works!
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Jym Dyer
should be able to figure it out, at least when he goes on one
of his sobriety binges.
=v= Marx described a grand spiral scheme, where rule by the
upper class (monarchy) gives way to rule by the middle/merchant
class (capitalism), which gives way to rule by the proletariat
("socialist" dictatorship), which gives way to nobody ruling
any more (communism). Simple, right?
=v= Russia and China both went directly from upper-class rule
to non-proletariat "socialist" dictatorship. Opponents of Marx
can thus say, "Aha! This PROVES Marx was wrong!" Supporters
of Marx can say, "Aha! This that stuff isn't REALLY communism!"
Both sides win. Hooray!
=v= Note that both countries have compensated for this lack of
merchant class rule by creating a form of "state capitalism" as
its cruel industrializing engine. Opponents of capitalism can
thus say, "Aha! This PROVES capitalism is bad!" Supporters of
capitalism can say, "Aha! This stuff isn't REALLY capitalism!"
Both sides win again. Hip hip!
<_Jym_>
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> =v= Marx described a grand spiral scheme, where rule by the
> upper class (monarchy) gives way to rule by the middle/merchant
> class (capitalism), which gives way to rule by the proletariat
> ("socialist" dictatorship), which gives way to nobody ruling
> any more (communism). Simple, right?
>
Isn't that anarchy, not communism?
LNER...@juno.com
> If you ask people, "How are the schools doing?" a large number will
> talk about how lousy they are, more or less along the lines to which
> Tinsley hews. If you ask them, "What do you think of your local
> school?" a large number will say it's quite good.
*You misspelled "Congress-person" as "school".
I would challenge you, however, to ask the question as you spelled it
in ANY major urban area in the United States, and find "a large number
who say it's quite good," specifically with regards to public schools,
not private/Catholic schools--and furthermore, to find such a "good"
system in a city where Democrats have the typical firmest of a lock on
power.
Jym Dyer
> Isn't that anarchy, not communism?
=v= It's an anarchy, but it's the "right" kind of anarchy.
According to Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat will
finally teach everyone how to live side-by-side in domestic
harmony, after which the state will whither away.
=v= (Anarchists, being anarchists, naturally espouse a few
dozen other "right" kinds of anarchy.)
<_Jym_>
--
Green Bay Steelers for Truth
racs...@gmail.com
Well, I'm not going to launch an entire study simply to answer your
curiosity.
Though I do find your Manichean division of Republican/Democratic
forces to be laughably idiotic.
And, hey, we look to comics for laughs.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
LNER...@juno.com
> > > If you ask people, "How are the schools doing?" a large number will
> > > talk about how lousy they are, more or less along the lines to which
> > > Tinsley hews. If you ask them, "What do you think of your local
> > > school?" a large number will say it's quite good.
>
> Well, I'm not going to launch an entire study simply to answer your
> curiosity.
>
Find me any parent living in a large urban American city (say, any of
the top 100-150 by population) that will say that their "local" (i.e.
publicly-funded) school system is "quite good". Heck, anyone not on
the payroll of said system.
I'm willing to say your presumption that everyone loves their local
schools is more "laughably idiotic" than my "division".
racs...@gmail.com
I never said "everyone." I said "a large number." Jesus, I didn't even
say "most."
I'm not getting into a pissing match simply because I failed to hew
your dogmatic line. Yes, every parent who lives in a city of more than
one million hates their local school. Despises it. Wants to march on
it with torches and burn it to the ground. Every single goddam one of
them. Except the Leninists who work there.
You're right. I'm wrong. And I've now been publicly humiliated!
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> =v= Marx described a grand spiral scheme, where rule by the
> upper class (monarchy) gives way to rule by the middle/merchant
> class (capitalism), which gives way to rule by the proletariat
> ("socialist" dictatorship), which gives way to nobody ruling
> any more (communism). Simple, right?
>
> =v= Russia and China both went directly from upper-class rule
> to non-proletariat "socialist" dictatorship. Opponents of Marx
> can thus say, "Aha! This PROVES Marx was wrong!" Supporters
> of Marx can say, "Aha! This that stuff isn't REALLY communism!"
> Both sides win. Hooray!
So, in that sense, we can say "Communism hasn't really been tried" in
the same sense as we can say "Well, we haven't tried necromancy to
solve all our problems!" Marx said the "spiral" was an inevitability
due to the very nature of the historical forces that drive human
affairs. This was kind of a moronic side-effect of the Enlightenment:
a burning desire to describe absolutely *everything* in "scientific"
terms, whether it really worked or not. (Clausewitz is another
example of a genius guilty of the same thing, except that Clausewitz
actually came up with a couple of useful insights mixed in with all
the dreck.)
However, any intelligent observer who read the Communist Manifesto and
asked himself, "Well, what would happen if actual humans tried to set
up a political system based on these teachings, using the power of a
national government to demand its citizens live by its strictures?"
would pretty much come up with what really did happen: rule by terror,
and unspeakable despair and horror for the citizenry unfortunate
enough to be victimized by it. So, in an actual, real-world sense
with actual, real-world humans implementing the system, "Communism"
has very much been tried, and found (by most of us who live more than
100 miles from the Golden Gate Bridge) to be wanting.
One doesn't get the same feeling reading Adam Smith, or even Ayn Rand.
"Let people the hell alone to pursue their own dreams, and it will
all work out" leads *away* from the Gulag, not toward it.
Jym Dyer
> tried" in the same sense as we can say "Well, we haven't tried
> necromancy to solve all our problems!"
=v= Of course.
> So, in an actual, real-world sense with actual, real-world
> humans implementing the system, "Communism" has very much been
> tried, and found (by most of us who live more than 100 miles
> from the Golden Gate Bridge) to be wanting.
=v= Well, I see you're right on board with the Rovian bashing
agenda. The vast majority of us living within 100 miles of that
bridge feel the same way. (I will note that when the Olympic
torch passed through San Francisco, the "Free Tibet" contingent
was decidedly local, while the People's Republic of China had
to bus in their red-flag-wavers from hundreds of miles away.)
=v= The imposition of a "dictatorship of a proletariat" that
would then whither away has never made a lick of sense to me.
Any dictatorship is abusable.
> One doesn't get the same feeling reading Adam Smith, or even
> Ayn Rand.
=v= Depends on the "one." My intelligent reading of Adam Smith
also brought to mind avenues of abuse, which have also happened
to be proved by history. (As for Ayn Rand, that crap leads
straight to Mad Max.)
<_Jym_>
J.D. Baldwin
> > humans implementing the system, "Communism" has very much been
> > tried, and found (by most of us who live more than 100 miles
> > from the Golden Gate Bridge) to be wanting.
>
> =v= Well, I see you're right on board with the Rovian bashing
> agenda.
So less than 24 hours after tweaking me for coming to conclusions
about Dan Piraro's personality based on his public utterances, you're
concluding that I'm part of the VWRC based on a fairly mainstream
opinion about Communism and the places in which its U.S. sympathizers
are likely to be found. Okay.
> The vast majority of us living within 100 miles of that
> bridge feel the same way. (I will note that when the Olympic
> torch passed through San Francisco, the "Free Tibet" contingent
> was decidedly local, while the People's Republic of China had
> to bus in their red-flag-wavers from hundreds of miles away.)
Well, sure, I can see where their popularity has declined in places
like Berkeley and San Rafael since that whole embracing-of-[semi-]
free-markets thing.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Great, since you have such a problem with socialism, call your
socialized fire departement and tell 'em you don't want their services
should your house catch fire; next, call your socialized police
department and tell 'em you don't want their help should you get
mugged, or your hourse broke into; finally, pull your kids out of the
socialized school system, I'm sure your family is ruggedly individual
enough to afford private school, or just home school. Heck, be sure
to avoid those socialized public roads when getting around, or using
that pesky socialized water from the tap. Of course, another option
is to just grow the hell up . . .
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
LNER...@juno.com
My wife's family out in Arizona:
The FD is right down the road a mile, all-volunteer, with only SOME
county/state help--they still have to hold chicken BBQ fundraisers and
solicit donations from the locals, and some of the equipment (brush/
forest) is converted ex-military trucks--not Hummers, but Jeeps and
the like.
The county is bigger than New Jersey. In some corners of the county,
if you need the police, it could be hours or maybe days. Of course,
in those corners, you can truly expect everyone to be armed--more
against coyotes than human vermin, but still..........
Yep. Home-schooled. Though by now there's been enough of a
population uptick that the schools are better and closer.
A windmill pumping into a 500-gallon water tank isn't "socialized
water." And it tastes better than the "socialized" stuff in the city.
Roads: well, this is where it falls apart. Father-in-law just retired
from County Roads; one brother-in-law still works for the county,
largely road maintenance for those new developments. Their local
road? Hasn't been paved in 50+ years, still concrete slab like old
Rt. 66.
So, given this state of affairs, how much of a tax reduction/credit
are you offering them over, say, those city dwellers?
Pat O'Neill
As for the FD--who trains the volunteers? I bet there's a state or
county fire academy that does that.
As for the cops--who patrols those roads? And responds to accidents?
The local civilians? Or, at the least, a sheriff's department, if not
the state cops?
And, I'd bet they already get quite a tax difference from the city
dwellers, whose taxes DO p[ay for water, fire, police and roads, and
probably public transit, too. You're not suggesting your in-laws pay
the same tax rate as the residents of Phoenix, do you?
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> [...]
> As for the FD--who trains the volunteers? I bet there's a state or
> county fire academy that does that.
>
> As for the cops--who patrols those roads? And responds to accidents?
> The local civilians? Or, at the least, a sheriff's department, if not
> the state cops?
Do you two really think that anyone who opposes socialism either does,
or ought to, object to local police and fire services?
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
> In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > As for the FD--who trains the volunteers? I bet there's a state or
> > county fire academy that does that.
>
> > As for the cops--who patrols those roads? And responds to accidents?
> > The local civilians? Or, at the least, a sheriff's department, if not
> > the state cops?
>
> Do you two really think that anyone who opposes socialism either does,
> or ought to, object to local police and fire services?
J. D. is right. Socialism (at least as far as I understand it)
involves some form of government control of the economy. What you guys
are discussing are the role and/or need for government to supply basic
services that society as a whole has decided it should provide for its
citizens. Which services and how much are a different debate.
Pat O'Neill
<wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> J. D. is right. Socialism (at least as far as I understand it)
> involves some form of government control of the economy. What you guys
> are discussing are the role and/or need for government to supply basic
> services that society as a whole has decided it should provide for its
> citizens. Which services and how much are a different debate.
Then why is that a discussion of even the possibility that one of
those services should be health care always devolves to screams about
"socialism" from the right wing? Why does discussion of public transit
so often reach the same level? If it's legitimate to debate "which
services and how much," why does the right wing always object when
those debates go beyond public safety?
Sherwood Harrington
> <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> J. D. is right. Socialism (at least as far as I understand it)
>> involves some form of government control of the economy. What you guys
>> are discussing are the role and/or need for government to supply basic
>> services that society as a whole has decided it should provide for its
>> citizens. Which services and how much are a different debate.
> Then why is that a discussion of even the possibility that one of
> those services should be health care always devolves to screams about
> "socialism" from the right wing?
That is odd, isn't it? The current right wing administration obviously
believes that state backing of 3/4 of all home mortgages in this country
is a legitimate, non-pinko, non-socialist thing to do... but not state
backing of the health of the people who live in those homes.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Whistling "The Internationale" in
Boulder Creek, California
(Which Is Within 100 Miles of the Golden Gate Bridge, So That's OK, Right
JD?)
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > J. D. is right. Socialism (at least as far as I understand it)
> > involves some form of government control of the economy. What you
> > guys are discussing are the role and/or need for government to
> > supply basic services that society as a whole has decided it should
> > provide for its citizens. Which services and how much are a
> > different debate.
>
> Then why is that a discussion of even the possibility that one of
> those services should be health care always devolves to screams
> about "socialism" from the right wing?
Because police and fire services won't exist without a government or
government-like organization calling them into being; there's no
realistic payment mechanism, and no profit to be had. (There's also,
obviously, a certain amount of volunteerism driving at least the fire
side of these services.) That's not true of health care, which *is*
something for which individuals can contract, pay and even insure
themselves as individuals.
Maybe the nationalization of medical care is a good idea overall, and
maybe it isn't (I incline toward the latter view), but it sure as hell
isn't comparable, as a matter of economics, to police and fire services.
Sherwood Harrington
> [...] police and fire services won't exist without a government or
> government-like organization calling them into being; there's no
> realistic payment mechanism, and no profit to be had. (There's also,
> obviously, a certain amount of volunteerism driving at least the fire
> side of these services.)
And there's a whole *lot* of profit to be had on the police side of these
services where the environment is sufficiently free-market to allow it.
The "mob" by what ever name in what ever time and place has always
provided a form of justice, order, and enforcement in its domains.
"Government-like," to use J.D.'s term, perhaps. Criminal, obviously.
Free-market, too, obviously. And effective, until a stronger hyena enters
the arena.
I prefer socialism to the mob, though, but that's just a personal choice.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Still Whistling in
Boulder Creek, California
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Besides those infamous "protection insurance" schemes, private
secutiry companies would be shocked to learn there's no profit motive
to policing.
obComics: Ralph Drabble is employed as a private security guard;
or "mall cop," as he prefers to be called . . .
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com>
wrote:
> Besides those infamous "protection insurance" schemes, private
> secutiry companies would be shocked to learn there's no profit motive
> to policing.
Private security isn't even remotely the same thing as "the police,"
despite a couple of superficial similarities. There *is* such a thing
as a private fire brigade (not usually called that), but you have to
be a pretty big operation for that to make economic sense.
aemeijers
> In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> J. D. is right. Socialism (at least as far as I understand it)
>>> involves some form of government control of the economy. What you
>>> guys are discussing are the role and/or need for government to
>>> supply basic services that society as a whole has decided it should
>>> provide for its citizens. Which services and how much are a
>>> different debate.
>> Then why is that a discussion of even the possibility that one of
>> those services should be health care always devolves to screams
>> about "socialism" from the right wing?
>
> Because police and fire services won't exist without a government or
> government-like organization calling them into being; there's no
> realistic payment mechanism, and no profit to be had. (There's also,
> obviously, a certain amount of volunteerism driving at least the fire
> side of these services.) That's not true of health care, which *is*
> something for which individuals can contract, pay and even insure
> themselves as individuals.
Uh, there are PLENTY of commercial security firms and
fire/hazmat/medical protection firms out there. IIRC, the original fire
companies in the olden days were subscription services. Admittedly, only
an affordable option for rich folks and corporate clients, but there is
a profits-to-be-had niche that is being filled.
Yes, I realize that automated fire suppression systems and commercial
campus fire/hazmat/emt brigades aren't the same thing as a real fire
department, but they do provide a level of protection. And the line
between rent-a-cops and real cops gets fuzzier by the year. For most
crime response, all the client needs is blue suits, shotguns, and
flashing lights. The bad guy takes off, even if they aren't really cops.
None of these would exist if they failed the cost-bennies test for the
clients or their insurance carriers. Not like the real cops have the
resources to investigate more than 1 crime in 10 after the fact anyway.
Hell, I have trouble even getting them to take reports of burglaries and
hit-and-run damage to parked cars.
>
> Maybe the nationalization of medical care is a good idea overall, and
> maybe it isn't (I incline toward the latter view), but it sure as hell
> isn't comparable, as a matter of economics, to police and fire services.
As to the pluses or minuses of nationalized health care- I'm not
touching that one with a 2.9 meter stick. We've beat that one down into
a little greasy spot too many times on here already.
--
aem sends....
George W Harris
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>Because police and fire services won't exist without a government or
>government-like organization calling them into being; there's no
>realistic payment mechanism, and no profit to be had.
That's not true. Many large corporations employ
what are essentially private police forcess, and the
extension of insurance companies into the fire prevention
business is hardly far-fetched. So unless you redefine
'government-like' so broadly as to render the term
essentially meaningless, then that's an indefensible claim.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Sherwood Harrington
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 02:03:58 +0000 (UTC),
> INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>>
>>Because police and fire services won't exist without a government or
>>government-like organization calling them into being; there's no
>>realistic payment mechanism, and no profit to be had.
> That's not true. Many large corporations employ
> what are essentially private police forces [...]
And so does at least one large country: the US in Iraq. Do we really need
a cite here?
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Sherwood Harrington
> In the previous article, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> Besides those infamous "protection insurance" schemes, private
>> secutiry companies would be shocked to learn there's no profit motive
>> to policing.
> Private security isn't even remotely the same thing as "the police,"
> despite a couple of superficial similarities.
Interesting that you've responded to Antonio's post concerning private
security guards and not mine concerning the mob, JD.
Doesn't the mob constitute a free-market police force? I think it does.
But it doesn't have anything to do with comic strips, so not answering
this post would probably be a good thing for you to do.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>> Then why is that a discussion of even the possibility that one of
>> those services should be health care always devolves to screams
>> about "socialism" from the right wing?
>
>Because police and fire services won't exist without a government or
>government-like organization calling them into being; there's no
>realistic payment mechanism, and no profit to be had. (There's also,
I thought the far right wing (say, like Sowell) really do endorse
privatizing fire depts, police, and transit.
--
This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.
-- Narrator, FIGHT CLUB (1999)
Pat O'Neill
wrote:
> > Then why is that a discussion of even the possibility that one of
> > those services should be health care always devolves to screams
> > about "socialism" from the right wing?
>
> Because police and fire services won't exist without a government or
> government-like organization calling them into being; there's no
> realistic payment mechanism, and no profit to be had. (There's also,
> obviously, a certain amount of volunteerism driving at least the fire
> side of these services.) That's not true of health care, which *is*
> something for which individuals can contract, pay and even insure
> themselves as individuals.
Until the mid-19th Century, fire protection in many areas WAS a profit
industry. You paid an "insurance premium" and got a medallion (or
similar sign) to hang on your building...and then the insurance
company would send a fire-protection service if your building caught
fire. Of course, they'd do nothing if the building NEXT to yours
caught fire.
Police protection was also a profit industry for centuries (when it
existed at all). Read up on London's "thief-takers" sometime.
Oh, and, of course, individuals also contract, pay and insure
themselves against fire and crime.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Sherwood Harrington
<sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
> >> Besides those infamous "protection insurance" schemes, private
> >> secutiry companies would be shocked to learn there's no profit motive
> >> to policing.
>
> > Private security isn't even remotely the same thing as "the police,"
> > despite a couple of superficial similarities.
>
> Interesting that you've responded to Antonio's post concerning private
> security guards and not mine concerning the mob, JD.
>
> Doesn't the mob constitute a free-market police force? I think it does.
I thought it was a little silly, even as a reductio ad absurdam, but
if you're really burning to have the point addressed: I don't equate
outright anarchy with the "free market." Just as a robust free market
requires an independent means of arbitrating disputes (i.e., the civil
courts), real personal freedom requires law and order to exist in any
meaningful way.
One of the problems a free society has to address is just how to
control its police so they don't *become* "the mob." Even the U.S. in
recent years has seen this take place, to a degree; New Orleans and Los
Angeles spring to mind. It's a far cry from Rwanda, but it's not a
very encouraging trend.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Andrew Ryan Chang <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >Because police and fire services won't exist without a government or
> >government-like organization calling them into being; there's no
> >realistic payment mechanism, and no profit to be had. (There's also,
>
> I thought the far right wing (say, like Sowell) really do endorse
> privatizing fire depts, police, and transit.
I don't know what Thomas Sowell, specifically, thinks on the subject,
but having been involved with the Libertarian Party in the past, I've
encountered a few who make the case that this is possible and
desirable. Personally, I don't think it works. I don't have a
problem with fire and rescue services instituting chargebacks so that
costs are distributed "fairly" -- where "fairly" means, "at least
somewhat according to use" -- but it's not exactly a bedrock principle
for me.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Just because someone screams "socialism" doesn't mean that is
necessarily so.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
> J.D. Baldwin <INVALID_SEE_...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> > In the previous article, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Besides those infamous "protection insurance" schemes, private
> >> secutiry companies would be shocked to learn there's no profit motive
> >> to policing.
> > Private security isn't even remotely the same thing as "the police,"
> > despite a couple of superficial similarities.
>
> Interesting that you've responded to Antonio's post concerning private
> security guards and not mine concerning the mob, JD.
>
> Doesn't the mob constitute a free-market police force? I think it does.
>
No. The police force derives its authority from the public as a whole-
as part of the social contract that binds the community together, we
agree to obey certain rules and establish a police force to enforce
those laws (at least in theory). A mob does not have this authority-
it acts upon what the mob itself believes is correct, which may or may
not intersect with what the public as a whole deisre.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
guys. The police have the legal authroity to arrest suspected
criminals. Rent-a-cops do not have such a authority; they have to turn
them over to the local police forces. And while legitimate police
forces have some been granted some leeway with regard to detaining
suspects, whoa to the security firm that violates a suspects civil
rights inthe course of detention- especially if the suspect is found
not guilty.
George W Harris
<wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Doesn't the mob constitute a free-market police force? I think it does.
>>
>
>No. The police force derives its authority from the public as a whole-
>as part of the social contract that binds the community together, we
>agree to obey certain rules and establish a police force to enforce
>those laws (at least in theory). A mob does not have this authority-
>it acts upon what the mob itself believes is correct, which may or may
>not intersect with what the public as a whole deisre.
Yeah, the thing is, not *everyone* agrees to obey
those rules. In fact, not everyone has the opportunity to
shape those rules. Those under legal voting age are still
subject to the actions of the police. A grade-school civics
lesson doesn't resolve this issue, and saying that any
society that doesn't have universal suffrage can't have a
police force is a radical redefinition of the term 'police force'.
George W Harris
<wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But the difference is what happens when the blue shirts catch the bad
>guys. The police have the legal authroity to arrest suspected
>criminals. Rent-a-cops do not have such a authority; they have to turn
>them over to the local police forces. And while legitimate police
>forces have some been granted some leeway with regard to detaining
>suspects, whoa to the security firm that violates a suspects civil
>rights inthe course of detention- especially if the suspect is found
>not guilty.
"Now who's being naive?"
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 05:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> >> Doesn't the mob constitute a free-market police force? I think it does.
>
> >No. The police force derives its authority from the public as a whole-
> >as part of the social contract that binds the community together, we
> >agree to obey certain rules and establish a police force to enforce
> >those laws (at least in theory). A mob does not have this authority-
> >it acts upon what the mob itself believes is correct, which may or may
> >not intersect with what the public as a whole deisre.
>
> Yeah, the thing is, not *everyone* agrees to obey
> those rules. In fact, not everyone has the opportunity to
> shape those rules. Those under legal voting age are still
> subject to the actions of the police. A grade-school civics
> lesson doesn't resolve this issue, and saying that any
> society that doesn't have universal suffrage can't have a
> police force is a radical redefinition of the term 'police force'.
Hey, said society makes the rules, and if one of the rules is "you
can't vote unless you meet these requirements" so be it. If a critical
mass of people want to change those rules, they will be changed-
either peacefully or violently.
And by the way, hwo deos this not resolve the issue of the difference
between services provided by the government (e.g., police) and paid
services (e.g., paid security guards)?
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 06:03:31 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> > But the difference is what happens when the blue shirts catch the bad
> >guys. The police have the legal authroity to arrest suspected
> >criminals. Rent-a-cops do not have such a authority; they have to turn
> >them over to the local police forces. And while legitimate police
> >forces have some been granted some leeway with regard to detaining
> >suspects, whoa to the security firm that violates a suspects civil
> >rights inthe course of detention- especially if the suspect is found
> >not guilty.
>
> "Now who's being naive?"
I guess I am- I don't see your point.
Did I call anyone naive?
aemeijers
at 0200 in the dark. Rent-a-cop is an agent of the owner, who does have
the power to detain people like that and hold them for the cops. In
public and quasi-public spaces like a mall, is where it gets slippery,
and loss-protection people like to have video and witnesses before they
grab somebody.
IANAL, etc, but I know a few of them.
--
aem sends...
Pat O'Neill
In some cases, "rent-a-cops" have even been given more power than
that. Here in Philly, the UPenn police (privately hired by the
university) have the full power to arrest and detain suspects on
campus (even though "campus" is sometimes just a city street). My
understanding is that they can turn them over to the courts without
further processing through the city cops.
aemeijers
that UPenn is a state school? It is routine for state schools to have
their own 'real' police departments, usually with concurrent
jurisdiction with the town that surrounds them. (Where campus stops and
city starts can get real fuzzy.)
But private real cops do exist- Railroad cops - private employees with
full police powers. Blame your state legislature- they can give police
powers to pretty much anyone they please. Most states, anyone with
police powers does have to meet a (thanks to the feds) basically
standardized minimum training regimen.
--
aem sends...
Pat O'Neill
UPenn is not a state school, it's a private, one of the Ivies. You're
thinking of Penn State; that's out in the middle of the state, not in
Philly.
Dann
news:ga4n24$mgm$1...@blue.rahul.net.
I have a tough time accepting that you believe that "tax funded" equates
to "socialism" or that the existence of any government function
automatically legitimizes all government functions.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
aemeijers
state legislature wrote the enabling law. IIRC, in Indiana where I grew
up, any chartered and licensed 'real' college can apply for and get
permission to set up their own PD. Most of the smaller ones don't
bother, since it isn't cheap. They just do a deal with the local PD or
sheriff's department.
--
aem sends...
Dann
4ede-b86d-c...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com.
> On Sep 8, 7:49 pm, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> J. D. is right. Socialism (at least as far as I understand it)
>> involves some form of government control of the economy. What you guys
>> are discussing are the role and/or need for government to supply basic
>> services that society as a whole has decided it should provide for its
>> citizens. Which services and how much are a different debate.
>
> Then why is that a discussion of even the possibility that one of
> those services should be health care always devolves to screams about
> "socialism" from the right wing? Why does discussion of public transit
> so often reach the same level? If it's legitimate to debate "which
> services and how much," why does the right wing always object when
> those debates go beyond public safety?
Perhaps because nationalizing [further] health care would be introducing
[more] socialism into the equation. Add to that the fact that single
payer, nationalized systems are some of the worst [by comparison*] of the
nationalizing schemes out there and that is exactly the model that those
advocating nationalization are screaming for the most.
Given the success of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I can't imagine why.
I can't speak for the right wing, but the further beyond the bounds of
cops, firemen, zoning, and schools we get, the less comfortable I am with
government involvment. That list isn't all inclusive and it contains
some practical/non-obvious things like acting against banking/investment
fraud, etc.
The problem is that once government steps beyond a few select functions,
it generally tends to stop being very successful at solving problems and
starts being very successful at creating them.
*I'm confident it Pat's reading comprehension skills, but just in case
anyone else wants to jump in......BY COMPARISON!!! That means that there
are other options that provide better results. Not that single payer
systems are unable to compete with whatever the North Koreans suffer
under.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In some cases, "rent-a-cops" have even been given more power than
> that. Here in Philly, the UPenn police (privately hired by the
> university) have the full power to arrest and detain suspects on
> campus (even though "campus" is sometimes just a city street). My
> understanding is that they can turn them over to the courts without
> further processing through the city cops.
Most campus police in the U.S. that are "real" police get trained,
sworn and derive their authority from the same source as other "real"
police. The UPenn police web page notes that they are a "private"
department, but that their officers are certified through the same
state commission as regular municipal cops (and, presumably, the state
police as well).
In general, though I've never been to the UPenn campus itself, I have
found other campus police to be pretty reasonable fellows. I've also
never heard of a murder-for-hire ring, or mass looting during a public
emergency, or a large-scale conspiracy to frame suspects and deal
drugs, etc., exposed in such a department, so "private" police forces
of this nature are pretty far down on the "stuff I worry about at
night" list.
On the other hand, there is the Disneyland Police. *That's* creepy.
aemeijers
> In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> In some cases, "rent-a-cops" have even been given more power than
>> that. Here in Philly, the UPenn police (privately hired by the
>> university) have the full power to arrest and detain suspects on
>> campus (even though "campus" is sometimes just a city street). My
>> understanding is that they can turn them over to the courts without
>> further processing through the city cops.
>
> Most campus police in the U.S. that are "real" police get trained,
> sworn and derive their authority from the same source as other "real"
> police. The UPenn police web page notes that they are a "private"
> department, but that their officers are certified through the same
> state commission as regular municipal cops (and, presumably, the state
> police as well).
>
> In general, though I've never been to the UPenn campus itself, I have
> found other campus police to be pretty reasonable fellows. I've also
> never heard of a murder-for-hire ring, or mass looting during a public
> emergency, or a large-scale conspiracy to frame suspects and deal
> drugs, etc., exposed in such a department, so "private" police forces
> of this nature are pretty far down on the "stuff I worry about at
> night" list.
>
> On the other hand, there is the Disneyland Police. *That's* creepy.
Ever see any of the History channel shows on how Disney World happened?
The dividing line between Disney and Government down there is REAL
fuzzy. Ol' Walt basically bought the county. Very much a company town,
just like some mining/lumbering/mill/factory towns were 100 years ago.
--
aem
Ted Goldblatt
A bit more involved than that. The Reedy Creek Improvement District
(basically, Disney World) was chartered by the state, not the county (it
actually straddles 2 counties). At the time, everyone thought it was a
great idea - it wasn't until much later (as greater Orlando grew to
encompass WDW) that people realized there were problems. RCID is
certainly a company "town" except no one lives there - Celebration was
officially deannexed to prevent the residents from having any say.
Disney (via RCID) has a lot of autonomy, but the main issues have been
pretty much total exemption from local zoning and land-use laws. They
_are_ subject to normal taxes and most other state and local laws.
Disney's security force doesn't have police powers - the 2 county
sheriffs departments provide that, while the Disney cops are limited to
kicking people out or holding them for the real cops.
ted
George W Harris
<wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Hey, said society makes the rules, and if one of the rules is "you
>can't vote unless you meet these requirements" so be it. If a critical
>mass of people want to change those rules, they will be changed-
>either peacefully or violently.
>
Same applies to the mob. The Society of
Legitimate Businessmen makes the rules, and one of
those rules is you have no say unless you're a
member of the Society. If a critical mass of people
want to change those rules, they will be changed -
probably violently.
George W Harris
It's a quote from Michael Corleone in the first
scene of "The Godfather", when Kay says "Oh Michael,
politicans don't have people killed."
It seemed apropos.
George W Harris
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>Most campus police in the U.S. that are "real" police get trained,
>sworn and derive their authority from the same source as other "real"
>police.
But they are nevertheless privately employed, and
that was the issue - whether the police are something that
must (or even are) be run *by* the state.
aemeijers
private employees. Depending on the state, they are actually carried as
public payroll, or as employees of a state-owned entity. A big
state-owned hospital or office complex can have their own police force
as well.
--
aem sends...
George W Harris
>As discussed further upthread- if it is a state school, they aren't
>private employees.
And if it's a baboon, they're fleas. Penn is
private; it antedates the country.
Invid Fan
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
Well, the original idea was for it to BE an actual city. Check out the
original plans for EPCOT in the short film Disney made just before he
died (available on the Tomorrow Land DVD set). Low and high density
housing for 10,000, an industrial complex, major jet airport, no
cars... what we got instead would make Walt cry.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Pat O'Neill
> The problem is that once government steps beyond a few select functions,
> it generally tends to stop being very successful at solving problems and
> starts being very successful at creating them.
>
This is mostly, IMO, because the people who were opposed to having the
government get involved put so many restrictions on how it can operate
in this new function that it is hamstrung from the beginning. There's
no better way to "prove" government can't do the job than to make it
impossible for government to do the job well.
Mark Jackson
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, said society makes the rules, and if one of the rules is "you
>> can't vote unless you meet these requirements" so be it. If a critical
>> mass of people want to change those rules, they will be changed-
>> either peacefully or violently.
>>
> Same applies to the mob. The Society of
> Legitimate Businessmen makes the rules, and one of
> those rules is you have no say unless you're a
> member of the Society. If a critical mass of people
> want to change those rules, they will be changed -
> probably violently.
Anyone else remembering Kornbluth's /The Syndic/?
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
The capacity to wreak destruction with your models
provides the ultimate respectability.
- Emanuel Derman
Dann
news:6d2f5b8c-0d06-4ce0...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
Have you an example in mind?
Pat O'Neill
> On 10 Sep 2008, Pat O'Neill said the following innews:6d2f5b8c-0d06-4ce0...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
>
> > On Sep 9, 10:55 pm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The problem is that once government steps beyond a few select
> >> functions, it generally tends to stop being very successful at
> >> solving problems and starts being very successful at creating them.
>
> > This is mostly, IMO, because the people who were opposed to having the
> > government get involved put so many restrictions on how it can operate
> > in this new function that it is hamstrung from the beginning. There's
> > no better way to "prove" government can't do the job than to make it
> > impossible for government to do the job well.
>
> Have you an example in mind?
>
Amtrak--forced to operate on tracks, for the most part, owned by
others, giving their trains preference for right of way. Virtually
forbidden to build new rights of way, in order to institute new
service to areas that might be well-served. (Imagine if there were
frequent daily service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, for
instance.) Starved of cash by Congress, but unable to raise money on
its own by bond offerings (as any real railroad would do).
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
I understand the quore, just didn't perceive the connection to the
topic at hand.
Ted Goldblatt
> George W Harris wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>> <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey, said society makes the rules, and if one of the rules is "you
>>> can't vote unless you meet these requirements" so be it. If a critical
>>> mass of people want to change those rules, they will be changed-
>>> either peacefully or violently.
>>>
>> Same applies to the mob. The Society of Legitimate Businessmen
>> makes the rules, and one of those rules is you have no say unless
>> you're a member of the Society. If a critical mass of people want to
>> change those rules, they will be changed - probably violently.
>
> Anyone else remembering Kornbluth's /The Syndic/?
That same thought came to me (I just reread the book a couple of months
ago), but I decided it was probably a bit too obscure to mention here.
I forgot that _nothing_ is too obscure to mention here...
ted
Rob Wynne
I'm a huge fan of Kornbluth, so it's always pleasing to see him brought up
in any context. If you're not familiar with his work, pick up the short
story collection "His Share of Glory" from NESFA Press. Highly highly
recommended.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2009: Jan 9-11, 2009 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
George W Harris
<wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I understand the quore, just didn't perceive the connection to the
>topic at hand.
It applies to the last statement of your post to
which it was a reply.
Detox
Erg....we've done this before.
I agree. Restrictions on creating new rights of way and limiting
Amtrak traffic to rails owned by someone else undercut Amtrak's
competitiveness in the transportation marketplace.
I agree. A route from LA to LV has the potential to be lucrative.
But......lifting those restrictions and creating such a route would
not make Amtrak profitable. An LA to LV run only has potential
because LV is a destination city and LA has a large enough population
that such a run could theoretically be profitable.
The larger problem with Amtrak is that travel via national rail
service in the US is grossly inefficient. You can get from LA to LV
much faster via air, and if you factor in the value of the time spent
on the train vs the additional time in LV, flying by air is generally
cheaper as well.
As a second example, I'm going to be in Chicago later this week for
business reasons. The first thing I did was check the Amtrak schedule
as I'd much rather spend 4 hours riding a train than 4 hours driving a
car. My destination is south of Soldier Field. I only have that day
to do what I am going to do.
Amtrak's only route arrives at Union Station at noon. I would then
need to spend an hour and a half to get to my destination. Assuming
I'd need a similar amount of time to make it back to the station in
time for the return train at 6 PM, that leaves me with 3 hours on the
ground to tour something that takes a couple days.
By comparison, if we drive over, we can be at our destination at 10
AM, leave when things close about 5 PM, and have over twice the amount
of time to spend looking around.
Rail makes economic sense in very few places. The northeast corridor
where you live is one example. Large and dense cities like Chicago
are another.
Rail would be great as a secondary system oriented around getting
airline passengers to and from local/regional destinations. But we
don't have that. At least I haven't found many airports that also
serve as rail hubs. Besides, such systems would be more correctly
operated by a local/regional company/government than by a national
one.
The vast majority of the US doesn't live where rail is economically
viable. Amtrak fails because there are faster and cheaper ways to
travel. Not because they can't build their own tracks.
--
Regards,
Dann
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Detox <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Amtrak's only route arrives at Union Station at noon. I would then
> need to spend an hour and a half to get to my destination.
A taxi to "south of Soldier Field" from Union Station shouldn't take
more than ten minutes. You can even rent a car to be picked up at the
station; they're actually very efficient and reliable.
However, as someone who takes that very train quite a bit, I have to
note that it is usually "a little" late, often 90 minutes and it's far
from rare to get in three hours late. If you really have to get in to
Chicago on time, you CANNOT rely on Amtrak.
It's not Amtrak's fault, really -- it's a function of that "they don't
own the tracks" thing, and they have to yield to any and every freight
train that conflicts with them. Sittin on the tracks, immobile, for
half an hour or more is common.
> Rail would be great as a secondary system oriented around getting
> airline passengers to and from local/regional destinations. But we
> don't have that. At least I haven't found many airports that also
> serve as rail hubs.
It's not a "hub" but O'Hare has a CTA terminal. I made good use of
that, just about every weekend, once upon a time. GREAT system, very
efficient, very reliable.
> The vast majority of the US doesn't live where rail is economically
> viable. Amtrak fails because there are faster and cheaper ways to
> travel. Not because they can't build their own tracks.
I'd love to see a network of those very nice, very fast trains that
now connect all of Europe, including Great Britain, implemented in the
U.S. -- and, given all the freight cars full of cash we throw at other
transportation "infrastructure" stuff, including those local to large
cities very few Americans will ever even visit, I wouldn't really
object to a big governmental outlay to get it going. But, sadly,
there are all kinds of reasons to conclude that they wouldn't be close
enough to "economically viable" even with a few dozen gigabucks thrown
at them.
Pat O'Neill
Why is it people who object to Amtrak always point out its
unprofitability in a comparison with air travel? The airlines aren't
exactly proving to be profit centers, either...and they are just as
heavily subsidized by government as Amtrak is. The difference is that
their subsidies are hidden as other things, while Amtrak's is clearly
labeled as such.
What are the airline subsidies? Let's start with the whole air traffic
control system...owned and operated by the federal government, while
Amtrak's analog is owned and operated by the railroads, including
Amtrak. Now we move on to the airports, owned and operated by state
and local governments (or quasi-governmental authorities, like the
NYNJ Port Authority)...but Amtrak's stations are owned and operated by
Amtrak. Then there's airline and airport security, handled by a
federal agency...but Amtrak's security is owned and operated by
Amtrak.
Oh--and there are similar subsidies for automobile travel: road
construction, security (police), traffic control, etc...all handled by
the government.
Let's be real--in a country as geographically large as the US, long-
distance travel is simply not profitable without huge governmental
involvement...not if it is also going to viable financially for any
but the wealthiest. Do we want to return to a time when the average
person never traveled more than a day's walk from his birthplace?
LNER...@juno.com
> Why is it people who object to Amtrak always point out its
> unprofitability in a comparison with air travel? The airlines aren't
> exactly proving to be profit centers, either...and they are just as
> heavily subsidized by government as Amtrak is. The difference is that
> their subsidies are hidden as other things, while Amtrak's is clearly
> labeled as such.
*Correct. I could point out that, days after 9-11-2001, the airlines
demanded--and GOT--a no-questions-asked "bail-out" of $15 billion,
which basically equaled the total outlay for Amtrak for over half its
existence since its 1971 formation.
>
> What are the airline subsidies? Let's start with the whole air traffic
> control system...owned and operated by the federal government, while
> Amtrak's analog is owned and operated by the railroads, including
> Amtrak. Now we move on to the airports, owned and operated by state
> and local governments (or quasi-governmental authorities, like the
> NYNJ Port Authority)...but Amtrak's stations are owned and operated by
> Amtrak. Then there's airline and airport security, handled by a
> federal agency...but Amtrak's security is owned and operated by
> Amtrak.
*Unfortunately for Amtrak, TSA is making inroads into Amtrak security
as well.
>
> Oh--and there are similar subsidies for automobile travel: road
> construction, security (police), traffic control, etc...all handled by
> the government.
*Yes, BUT the model that the US has developed is that the
infrastructure costs of highways, as well as river navigation (Army
Corps of Engineers, for one), etc. are SUPPOSED to be almost
completely covered by the revenues collected by gas taxes, user fees,
and the like. In reality, both state and federal governments have
proven WAY too adept at raiding these "trust funds" to cover deficits,
earmarks, etc., while refusing to raise the taxes/fees in question for
fear of political fallout. The result: infrastructure decaying to the
point where it could pass the tipping point of crisis where it'll fail
faster than any ability to repair it.
>
> Let's be real--in a country as geographically large as the US, long-
> distance travel is simply not profitable without huge governmental
> involvement...not if it is also going to viable financially for any
> but the wealthiest. Do we want to return to a time when the average
> person never traveled more than a day's walk from his birthplace?
In the case of Amtrak specifically, it MUST be regarded as a public
service, the rural version of the money pit that urban transit is.
The problem is, as pointed out, the host-railroad problem. The
freight railroads are doing a gangbuster business with current fuel
prices, and it's more profitable to run their freight than an Amtrak
train, no matter how much of a premium Amtrak supposedly pays. And
frankly, given that I can fly to LA in six hours while the train takes
me three days, Amtrak stands little chance as an independent
commercial operation, no matter how wonderful the scenery is at
Glorieta Pass, Horseshoe Curve, or the Izaak Walton Inn.
But ironically, the European Union mandates forced the
denationalization of most of the railroads of Europe, and Japan
swiftly followed suit, so the old argument that "nationalized rails
are better" simply doesn't cut it any more.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
As I've pointed out before, I'll just mention I've been using
Amtrak to go to San Diego since 1997 . . .
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
George W Harris
>But ironically, the European Union mandates forced the
>denationalization of most of the railroads of Europe, and Japan
>swiftly followed suit, so the old argument that "nationalized rails
>are better" simply doesn't cut it any more.
That doesn't really follow unless those
denationalizations result in equal or superior
performance.
Cindy Kandolf
> UPenn is not a state school, it's a private, one of the Ivies. You're
> thinking of Penn State; that's out in the middle of the state, not in
> Philly.
For that matter, we only call it "UPenn" when youse outta-staters are
listening. When it's just us, we save a syllable and say "Penn".
And yes, we do it just to annoy. Some people need annoyed.
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
flodmail: ci...@nethelp.no flodhome: Bærum, Norway
flodweb: http://www.flodnak.com/
Mark Jackson
> As I've pointed out before, I'll just mention I've been using
> Amtrak to go to San Diego since 1997 . . .
Hang in there - the freight will have passed shortly, and you'll be
moving again.
(Members of our family have used Amtrak from Rochester to get to and
from Chicago, Boston, the Albany area, and the lower Hudson valley.)
Dann
410f-9e0d-6...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
> Replying to both JD and Dann:
>
> Why is it people who object to Amtrak always point out its
> unprofitability in a comparison with air travel?
Because it should be glaringly obvious that spending money to create an
inefficient transporation mode where an effecient one already exists is a
waste of money that would be better spent solving real problems.
> The airlines aren't
> exactly proving to be profit centers, either...and they are just as
> heavily subsidized by government as Amtrak is. The difference is that
> their subsidies are hidden as other things, while Amtrak's is clearly
> labeled as such.
>
> What are the airline subsidies? Let's start with the whole air traffic
> control system...owned and operated by the federal government, while
> Amtrak's analog is owned and operated by the railroads, including
> Amtrak. Now we move on to the airports, owned and operated by state
> and local governments (or quasi-governmental authorities, like the
> NYNJ Port Authority)...but Amtrak's stations are owned and operated by
> Amtrak. Then there's airline and airport security, handled by a
> federal agency...but Amtrak's security is owned and operated by
> Amtrak.
As Alex pointed out, the "subsidies"* for other modes of transportation
are theoretically funded by gas taxes, user fees, etc. Have you any idea
how much of the funding for air and road travel comes out of the general
fund rather than from those gax taxes, user fees, etc? I don't.
*scare quotes because when a function is paid for via user fees, it isn't
really being subsidized.
> Oh--and there are similar subsidies for automobile travel: road
> construction, security (police), traffic control, etc...all handled by
> the government.
>
> Let's be real--in a country as geographically large as the US, long-
> distance travel is simply not profitable without huge governmental
> involvement...not if it is also going to viable financially for any
> but the wealthiest. Do we want to return to a time when the average
> person never traveled more than a day's walk from his birthplace?
Indeed. Let's be real. In terms of dollars per passenger mile, or in
terms of percent of subsidy [as opposed to gas taxes/user fees], I'm
willing to bet that rail is significantly subsidized when compared with
other modes of transportation with the possible exception of city buses.
And by subsidized I mean money that does not come from gas taxes or user
fees.
There is a difference between government "involvement" and government
"subsidy". Government involvement in something that is ultimately paid
for by the people that use that service does not force non-users to
subsidize something for which they have no use.
And let's be real. If we are going to spend more money on transporation,
shouldn't it be on something that people are going to use? Cars and
airplanes are the dominant modes of transporation because they get people
to where they want to go in a timely manner.
Rail doesn't.
If we are going to spend money on rail.....and I'm not necessarily
opposed to that....it should be to get travelers to the nearest major
airport. Not to their ultimate desination.
Could rail be more competitive if the tracks were dedicated to passenger
service? Sure. Which is why most metro systems that I know of own or
lease dedicated trackage.
IMO, it wouldn't be enough to overcome the fact that I can fly to most of
the places I need to go much quicker than I can get there via rail.
Again IMO, it is a population density issue. Europe and Japan have a
dense enough population to support rail.
We don't.
You suggested that government rules prevent Amtrak from being successful.
I disagree. IMO, there are other, more effecient modes of transporation
that exist without the degree of subsidy [if those other modes require
any subsidy at all] that rail requires.
I even agree with you that those rules harm Amtrak's competitiveness and
that those rules may even prevent Amtrak from establishing news routes
that people might actually use.
Pat O'Neill
>
> > Why is it people who object to Amtrak always point out its
> > unprofitability in a comparison with air travel?
>
> Because it should be glaringly obvious that spending money to create an
> inefficient transporation mode where an effecient one already exists is a
> waste of money that would be better spent solving real problems.
>
The airlines are EFFICIENT? By what measure of efficiency? I have to
arrive at the airport two hours (or more) before my flight leaves,
thereby wasting what could be two productive hours elsewhere. The
airport is, almost inevitably, a half-hour or more from the center of
the city, in the best of times, thereby wasting even more of my time.
Airline security now requires me to check nearly all of my luggage, so
I waste more time waiting for it to be unloaded from the plane. (Not
to mention all the things I CAN'T do even while on the airplane...e-
mail, web surfing, phone calls.)
I rarely need to be at the train station more than 30 minutes before
my train leaves. The train station is in the middle of town (or, at
worst, on the outskirts), and is usually reachable by public
transportation. I can carry all my luggage onto the train if I wish.
And I can do virtually anything I want electronically on the train.
> As Alex pointed out, the "subsidies"* for other modes of transportation
> are theoretically funded by gas taxes, user fees, etc. Have you any idea
> how much of the funding for air and road travel comes out of the general
> fund rather than from those gax taxes, user fees, etc? I don't.
>
> *scare quotes because when a function is paid for via user fees, it isn't
> really being subsidized.
Right-wing baloney. How come when it gets raised by a liberal
politician, a user fee suddenly becomes a "tax hike"...but when it's
compared to a tax-based subsidy, it's back to being a user fee and is
a good thing? If the airlines had to provide those facilities and
services individually and directly, instead of binding together to get
them through government involvement, the costs would be far higher and
the cost of a plane ticket would skyrocket. Gee--what do you think it
would be like if each airline had to have a separate airport in each
city...as the railroads once did?
> And let's be real. If we are going to spend more money on transporation,
> shouldn't it be on something that people are going to use? Cars and
> airplanes are the dominant modes of transporation because they get people
> to where they want to go in a timely manner.
>
> Rail doesn't.
It could--if it weren't hamstrung. If it weren't forced to compete on
a unlevel playing field.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> As I've pointed out before, I'll just mention I've been using
> Amtrak to go to San Diego since 1997 . . .
>
When do you expect to arrive?
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> writes:
> > UPenn is not a state school, it's a private, one of the Ivies. You're
> > thinking of Penn State; that's out in the middle of the state, not in
> > Philly.
>
> For that matter, we only call it "UPenn" when youse outta-staters are
> listening. When it's just us, we save a syllable and say "Penn".
>
> And yes, we do it just to annoy. Some people need annoyed.
>
And those really in the know save a letter and just call it "Pen".
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Replying to both JD and Dann:
>
> Why is it people who object to Amtrak always point out its
> unprofitability in a comparison with air travel?
I didn't point that out. But now that you bring it up ...
> The airlines aren't exactly proving to be profit centers,
> either...
But they've proven in the recent past that it's *possible* for an
airline to turn a profit. Unlike Amtrak.
> and they are just as heavily subsidized by government as
> Amtrak is.
I very seriously doubt it. All the stuff you list as government
subsidies are things for which chargebacks exist -- airlines and GA
users are taxed to support ATC, and airports charge landing fees.
In fact, airports are often quite profitable enterprises.
All that said, I oppose corporate welfare in any form, on principle,
but I'm not going to go on a letter-writing jihad to get Amtrak's
subsidies nulled out while we're bailing out airlines, car companies,
throwing cash down the toilet to make sugar and corn growers rich(er),
etc., etc., etc. The Amtrak subsidies are small potatoes, in the
scheme of federal outlays, and unlike a great many of those outlays,
it can at least be said that they do some good for the public, as
opposed to narrow private interests.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Sep 11, 7:46 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Why is it people who object to Amtrak always point out its
>> > unprofitability in a comparison with air travel?
>>
>> Because it should be glaringly obvious that spending money to
>> create an inefficient transporation mode where an effecient one
>> already exists is a waste of money that would be better spent
>> solving real problems.
>
> The airlines are EFFICIENT? By what measure of efficiency? I have to
> arrive at the airport two hours (or more) before my flight leaves,
> thereby wasting what could be two productive hours elsewhere. The
> airport is, almost inevitably, a half-hour or more from the center
> of the city, in the best of times, thereby wasting even more of my
> time. Airline security now requires me to check nearly all of my
> luggage, so I waste more time waiting for it to be unloaded from the
> plane. (Not to mention all the things I CAN'T do even while on the
> airplane...e- mail, web surfing, phone calls.)
Wait a minute. Those aren't airline inefficiencies; they're
government-imposed airport inefficiencies. Before the latest
impositions, I could show up half an hour before my flight with only a
carry-on bag and make my plane with no problem.
I'm sure that given the proper instigation, the government could see
fit to make taking the train just as onerous.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who would give up essential
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Liberty, to purchase a little
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |temporary Safety, deserve neither
|Liberty nor Safety.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Benjamin Franklin
(650)857-7572
Detox
> On Sep 11, 7:46 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Why is it people who object to Amtrak always point out its
> > > unprofitability in a comparison with air travel?
>
> > Because it should be glaringly obvious that spending money to create an
> > inefficient transporation mode where an effecient one already exists is a
> > waste of money that would be better spent solving real problems.
>
> The airlines are EFFICIENT? By what measure of efficiency? I have to
> arrive at the airport two hours (or more) before my flight leaves,
> thereby wasting what could be two productive hours elsewhere. The
> airport is, almost inevitably, a half-hour or more from the center of
> the city, in the best of times, thereby wasting even more of my time.
> Airline security now requires me to check nearly all of my luggage, so
> I waste more time waiting for it to be unloaded from the plane. (Not
> to mention all the things I CAN'T do even while on the airplane...e-
> mail, web surfing, phone calls.)
>
> I rarely need to be at the train station more than 30 minutes before
> my train leaves. The train station is in the middle of town (or, at
> worst, on the outskirts), and is usually reachable by public
> transportation. I can carry all my luggage onto the train if I wish.
> And I can do virtually anything I want electronically on the train.
By comparison, I usually arrive about an hour a head of the scheduled
departure time and have plenty of time to get to my airplane. Even on
short runs [Detroit to Chicago], flying makes more sense as the people
that I meet live in the suburbs and the clients we visit are rarely
anywhere close to the city center.
Traveling by rail to Chicago for those trips would actually cost more
time than simply flying out of Detroit [or better still Lansing] into
one of the many airports in northern Illinois or southern Wisconsin.
> > As Alex pointed out, the "subsidies"* for other modes of transportation
> > are theoretically funded by gas taxes, user fees, etc. Have you any idea
> > how much of the funding for air and road travel comes out of the general
> > fund rather than from those gax taxes, user fees, etc? I don't.
>
> > *scare quotes because when a function is paid for via user fees, it isn't
> > really being subsidized.
>
> Right-wing baloney. How come when it gets raised by a liberal
> politician, a user fee suddenly becomes a "tax hike"...but when it's
> compared to a tax-based subsidy, it's back to being a user fee and is
> a good thing? If the airlines had to provide those facilities and
> services individually and directly, instead of binding together to get
> them through government involvement, the costs would be far higher and
> the cost of a plane ticket would skyrocket. Gee--what do you think it
> would be like if each airline had to have a separate airport in each
> city...as the railroads once did?
Not baloney....of any wing.
http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/table_04.html
http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/table_03.html
Any way you slice it, rail requires by far the largest subsidy per
passenger mile. Travel by car required no subsidy in almost every
year. And travel via airplane had several non-subsidized years as
well. In effect, car and plane passengers subsidize trains that most
of those travellers will never use.
> > And let's be real. If we are going to spend more money on transporation,
> > shouldn't it be on something that people are going to use? Cars and
> > airplanes are the dominant modes of transporation because they get people
> > to where they want to go in a timely manner.
>
> > Rail doesn't.
>
> It could--if it weren't hamstrung. If it weren't forced to compete on
> a unlevel playing field.
Y'know, I've pretty clearly acknowledged that we could increase our
use of rail if we were a but smarter about how it is used. I've even
agreed that your arguments about track rights/construction hinder
Amtrak's ability to succeed. And I've acknowledged that there are
places....like the Washington-Boston corridor where you live...where
rail makes a fair amount of sense.
Is there any chance that you could acknowledge that there are
places....like 95%* of the rest of the country....where I
live....where it doesn't?
*statistical analysis and/or research is not implied
--
Regards,
Dann
Pat O'Neill
>
> Is there any chance that you could acknowledge that there are
> places....like 95%* of the rest of the country....where I
> live....where it doesn't?
>
No, because it really hasn't been tried adequately. Yes, for anything
more than 500 miles, flight is preferable over rail. But is automobile
travel REALLY preferable to rail travel in the 200-500 mile range? If
it is, why is it that so many other countries rely so much more
heavily on rail over those distances? Why do companies hauling freight
prefer it?
It hasn't been tried because, about 60 years ago, the nation made a
foolish decision (one largely supported by massive political power
from the auto and oil industries) to stress road building over rail
building. We forced a private industry--rail--to compete with a
government program--the Interstate Highway system. It was a foregone
conclusion which would win...despite the right-wing's constant lauding
of the power of the free market and private enterprise.
We are now six decades behind the rest of the world in the advancement
of passenger rail service...and our passenger rails were once the
model for that world.
J.D. Baldwin
> anything more than 500 miles, flight is preferable over rail. But is
> automobile travel REALLY preferable to rail travel in the 200-500
> mile range?
Depends on your criterion. If flexibility is important, it's *always*
preferable. If speed of travel is important, it's almost certainly
preferable. *Sometimes*, if you're traveling to a big city where
parking will cost you a couple of sawbucks a night, rail will come out
rather cheaper.
> If it is, why is it that so many other countries rely so much more
> heavily on rail over those distances?
Because other countries aren't laid out like a large proportion of the
United States?
> Why do companies hauling freight prefer it?
Because an hour's delay for a freight load is trivial. Six hours'
delay is insignificant. A day or two is no big deal, in most cases.
This does not apply to travel for individuals, who value their time
more highly than that.
Detox
> On Sep 11, 1:21 pm, Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there any chance that you could acknowledge that there are
> > places....like 95%* of the rest of the country....where I
> > live....where it doesn't?
>
> No, because it really hasn't been tried adequately. Yes, for anything
> more than 500 miles, flight is preferable over rail. But is automobile
> travel REALLY preferable to rail travel in the 200-500 mile range? If
> it is, why is it that so many other countries rely so much more
> heavily on rail over those distances? Why do companies hauling freight
> prefer it?
My employer ships almost everything via truck as our customers expect
delivery times faster than trains can provide. And, I also see a ton
of trucks moving freight on the highway that cuts through town. Sure
there is lots of freight being moved via rail. More than is moved via
truck.
Not a lot more, but more.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/bts_special_report/2007_07_27/html/table_01.html
Take a good look at the map of any country with a rail service you
like.
Take a good look at a map of your neck of the woods.
Then take a good look at a map of NW Ohio, SW Michigan, southern
Illinois, western Tennessee.
We don't have the population density needed to support the sort of
passenger rail service that you envision.
> It hasn't been tried because, about 60 years ago, the nation made a
> foolish decision (one largely supported by massive political power
> from the auto and oil industries) to stress road building over rail
> building. We forced a private industry--rail--to compete with a
> government program--the Interstate Highway system. It was a foregone
> conclusion which would win...despite the right-wing's constant lauding
> of the power of the free market and private enterprise.
Or perhaps Congress created something that their constituents
wanted....
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/06mar/07.htm
> We are now six decades behind the rest of the world in the advancement
> of passenger rail service...and our passenger rails were once the
> model for that world.
Or perhaps our population density is less than other places where rail
is a common mode of human transportation.
http://maps.howstuffworks.com/europe-population-density-map.htm
http://maps.howstuffworks.com/north-america-population-density-map.htm
The last word is yours.*
--
Regards,
Dann
*I hate that sentence. He'll come back with something really good
just to make me sit on my fingers.
ronniecat
news:deea0734-3bef-4e7f...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
Oh, *bravo*, sir.
--
Address altered to avoid spam; remove mycollar to reply
http://www.hearingloss.blogspot.com
Mike Beede
<e77283eb-4809-4494...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Detox <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My employer ships almost everything via truck as our customers expect
> delivery times faster than trains can provide. And, I also see a ton
> of trucks moving freight on the highway that cuts through town. Sure
> there is lots of freight being moved via rail. More than is moved via
> truck.
And barges are even cheaper than trains--maybe we should shift
commuter emphasis to passenger barges. We'd have a system
of barges running up and down the Mississippi and other major
river systems, and we could use trains to haul people east and
west, then buses to take them to their final marshalling
points, where they'd strap on roller skates and zip off to
their homes.
The barge companies would probably make a lot more selling
in-flight meals than the airlines do, too, since each trip
would take an average of 9 days each way.
Mike Beede
Pat O'Neill
wrote:
> In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > No, because it really hasn't been tried adequately. Yes, for
> > anything more than 500 miles, flight is preferable over rail. But is
> > automobile travel REALLY preferable to rail travel in the 200-500
> > mile range?
>
> Depends on your criterion. If flexibility is important, it's *always*
> preferable. If speed of travel is important, it's almost certainly
> preferable. *Sometimes*, if you're traveling to a big city where
> parking will cost you a couple of sawbucks a night, rail will come out
> rather cheaper.
I'll grant you flexibility...but speed? The average speed of a
passenger train on a dedicated track (as opposed to one where freight
gets preference) is more than 100 miles an hour. The speed limit in
most parts of the US is 65mph...which means that the average driver is
probably doing 75...when traffic and weather doesn't mean he's doing
50. And getting back to efficiency, etc.--on a train I can work while
I travel; if I'm driving, I can't.
> > If it is, why is it that so many other countries rely so much more
> > heavily on rail over those distances?
>
> Because other countries aren't laid out like a large proportion of the
> United States?
Europe, as a whole, is not radically different in population density
than the US east of the Mississippi (I'll grant you the west is
different). Think of the countries of Europe as the equivalent of
states here. Transborder rail traffic is the norm in Europe, while
interstate road travel is the norm here. There's no reason that should
be the case other than six decades of government support of one over
the other.
> > Why do companies hauling freight prefer it?
>
> Because an hour's delay for a freight load is trivial. Six hours'
> delay is insignificant. A day or two is no big deal, in most cases.
> This does not apply to travel for individuals, who value their time
> more highly than that.
There's a CSX freight line two blocks from my house. Twice a week, I
see a train go by (headed north) made up almost entirely of cars
labeled "Tropicana". I assume they're hauling either orange juice or
fresh oranges for processing, maybe both. Seems to me a difference of
a few hours, let alone a day or two, makes a big difference there. So
why isn't Tropicana using trucks?
Pat O'Neill
>
> We don't have the population density needed to support the sort of
> passenger rail service that you envision.
See my earlier comment to JD--I'll grant you that argument for west of
the Mississippi...but in the eastern third of the nation? Hell, rail
travel used to be efficient enough for it to be the primary method
that baseball teams used for road trips (in the days when all the
teams were located in the northeastern quadrant of the
country...nothing south of DC, nothing west of St. Louis).
> > It hasn't been tried because, about 60 years ago, the nation made a
> > foolish decision (one largely supported by massive political power
> > from the auto and oil industries) to stress road building over rail
> > building. We forced a private industry--rail--to compete with a
> > government program--the Interstate Highway system. It was a foregone
> > conclusion which would win...despite the right-wing's constant lauding
> > of the power of the free market and private enterprise.
>
> Or perhaps Congress created something that their constituents
> wanted....
>
I read through your linked citation. I see nothing there to indicate
there was a public outcry for this highway system. I see lot about the
military wanting it and business wanting it and Congress wanting it
(probably because it was a terrific patronage trough). I'm not saying
the Interstate system was a mistake...I'm saying it was a mistake to
concentrate on the one mode of ground transportation and not give
equal consideration to others, primarily rail.
aemeijers
> On Sep 11, 4:24 pm, INVALID_SEE_...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin)
> wrote:
>> In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No, because it really hasn't been tried adequately. Yes, for
>>> anything more than 500 miles, flight is preferable over rail. But is
>>> automobile travel REALLY preferable to rail travel in the 200-500
>>> mile range?
>> Depends on your criterion. If flexibility is important, it's *always*
>> preferable. If speed of travel is important, it's almost certainly
>> preferable. *Sometimes*, if you're traveling to a big city where
>> parking will cost you a couple of sawbucks a night, rail will come out
>> rather cheaper.
>
> I'll grant you flexibility...but speed? The average speed of a
> passenger train on a dedicated track (as opposed to one where freight
> gets preference) is more than 100 miles an hour. The speed limit in
> most parts of the US is 65mph...which means that the average driver is
> probably doing 75...when traffic and weather doesn't mean he's doing
> 50. And getting back to efficiency, etc.--on a train I can work while
> I travel; if I'm driving, I can't.
>
matter as much as portal-to-portal speed. Unless you live next to a RR
station, and your destination is close to the station at the other end,
you still add an hour or two waiting around. I'm currently researching a
trip to visit relatives in NC, traveling from SW MI. Turns out it would
only take me a couple 3 more hours to drive versus flying (since my
airport is an hour away), for half the money. And I wouldn't need to
disrupt my relatives day for the 2 hours it would take them to fetch me
(since their airport is an hour away), so the time is almost a wash.
Gotta look at the trip as a package.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of trains, where they make sense, like
the urban corridors and ringed cities. But they will never be as popular
or practical here as in Europe, due to distances and cultural
expectations. If nothing else, even assuming there is a train that meets
your schedule city center to city center, there is the same problem as
air travel- how do you get to the station, and how do you get around on
the other end? Parking and car rental easily outweigh ticket cost on
many air trips, presumably rail trips would add up in a similar fashion.
--
aem sends...
aemeijers
the railroads the classic robber barons? It never has been totally
market-driven free enterprise. They got all sorts of government help and
land grants to build their rail routes in the first place, they got
government help on allowed freight rates and exclusive turf, yada yada
yada. Just like the interstates/trucking companies and airlines did
after them. I recall from high school history that there were lotsa
sweetheart deals in the riverine/canal passenger/freight glory years as
well. Somebody throws some money around, and any new and upcoming
technology or industry gets a little help from the powers that be.
--
aem sends...
Dann
news:dd1859f1-bdc1-44f2...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.
> On Sep 11, 5:47 pm, Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> We don't have the population density needed to support the sort of
>> passenger rail service that you envision.
>
> See my earlier comment to JD--I'll grant you that argument for west of
> the Mississippi...but in the eastern third of the nation? Hell, rail
> travel used to be efficient enough for it to be the primary method
> that baseball teams used for road trips (in the days when all the
> teams were located in the northeastern quadrant of the
> country...nothing south of DC, nothing west of St. Louis).
Argh!!!!!!! I couldn't even last two minutes!!
You skipped over these.
http://maps.howstuffworks.com/europe-population-density-map.htm
http://maps.howstuffworks.com/north-america-population-density-map.htm
Your perceptions about population density are not based in fact. America
has a consistent population density similar to that found in Europe only
from the eastern half of PA/NY and continuing on through to MA. The rest
of the country*...including most of the land east of Old Man River...has
a population density that is much less than that found in Europe.
LA and Chicago duly noted as high population density pimples in an
otherwise low density population distribution.