Nfab's Comments
Alex - thanks for responding. I really do appreciate how engaged all of the authors at Neatorama always are.
However, I would argue that you didn't respond to one of my more important points - that you point to a deliberately and overtly conservative blog without any recognition of that fact. Especially when it comes to issues like public transportation spending (and, more acutely, Amtrak), conservative pundits have a particular agenda they try to drive home.
I don't disagree that Amtrak selling $16 burger is ridiculous - the problem is, by linking to a conservative blog, you aren't telling the full story. That blog calls it inefficient and wasteful spending - but maybe we should instead look to the fact that food management on railroads is an incredibly difficult and expensive task (especially when talking about long distance lines, instead of just the Northeast Corridor). Why did you not instead link to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/us/politics/amtrak-lost-834-million-on-food-in-last-decade-audit-finds.html), which presents both sides of the story - including presenting Amtrak's explanations for the costs?
The implication of your post is that Amtrak does this without any care of the implications, but at their core they are a business - and no business wants to incur losses of that magnitude for everything (and, I would argue, things like this do run counter to their best interests as they try to push for additional funding for new projects). And by not linking directly linking to the report of the GAO, you are letting that outlet's personal agenda seep through, instead of presenting facts and using that to encourage debate.
I would also argue that while this may have all been unintentional , your choice of source - and your reference to Amtrak as "Big Government's Amtrak" - does seem like a political agenda (whether yours personally or just the influence of your source).
However, I would argue that you didn't respond to one of my more important points - that you point to a deliberately and overtly conservative blog without any recognition of that fact. Especially when it comes to issues like public transportation spending (and, more acutely, Amtrak), conservative pundits have a particular agenda they try to drive home.
I don't disagree that Amtrak selling $16 burger is ridiculous - the problem is, by linking to a conservative blog, you aren't telling the full story. That blog calls it inefficient and wasteful spending - but maybe we should instead look to the fact that food management on railroads is an incredibly difficult and expensive task (especially when talking about long distance lines, instead of just the Northeast Corridor). Why did you not instead link to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/us/politics/amtrak-lost-834-million-on-food-in-last-decade-audit-finds.html), which presents both sides of the story - including presenting Amtrak's explanations for the costs?
The implication of your post is that Amtrak does this without any care of the implications, but at their core they are a business - and no business wants to incur losses of that magnitude for everything (and, I would argue, things like this do run counter to their best interests as they try to push for additional funding for new projects). And by not linking directly linking to the report of the GAO, you are letting that outlet's personal agenda seep through, instead of presenting facts and using that to encourage debate.
I would also argue that while this may have all been unintentional , your choice of source - and your reference to Amtrak as "Big Government's Amtrak" - does seem like a political agenda (whether yours personally or just the influence of your source).
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
There are a great number of things that I find shocking about this article.
First, there are the number of inaccuracies in the first sentence - not so much that they are wrong, but they are designed to mislead people. The cost analogy to a restaurant implies that's what people pay - it's contradicted in the next paragraph. I would also note that referring to it as "Big Government's Amtrak" is a pretty short-sighted view of what Amtrak's purpose was and is. It was founded in 1971 to ensure that private companies no longer had to provide a vital service to America. It may have been an expansion of government services, but solely because freight railroads all but begged for its existence.
I would also note how much it astounds me that Neatorama - a blog I go to specifically for its lack of political proclivities - would link to an overt and avowed conservative blog, without noting it. This isn't an unbiased news article from a reputable news source - you could find just as many, I am sure, apologetic liberal blogs who would be able to blame these costs on something else.
All in all, I've been a devout Neatorama reader for more than five years. And this was my first time commenting - and it will likely be my last. This is reason enough for me to stay away.
First, there are the number of inaccuracies in the first sentence - not so much that they are wrong, but they are designed to mislead people. The cost analogy to a restaurant implies that's what people pay - it's contradicted in the next paragraph. I would also note that referring to it as "Big Government's Amtrak" is a pretty short-sighted view of what Amtrak's purpose was and is. It was founded in 1971 to ensure that private companies no longer had to provide a vital service to America. It may have been an expansion of government services, but solely because freight railroads all but begged for its existence.
I would also note how much it astounds me that Neatorama - a blog I go to specifically for its lack of political proclivities - would link to an overt and avowed conservative blog, without noting it. This isn't an unbiased news article from a reputable news source - you could find just as many, I am sure, apologetic liberal blogs who would be able to blame these costs on something else.
All in all, I've been a devout Neatorama reader for more than five years. And this was my first time commenting - and it will likely be my last. This is reason enough for me to stay away.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
First, up until the creation of Amtrak, freight railroads companies were required, by law, to offer passenger rail service over a certain percentage of their total trackage. This was to ensure that there was equity among freight railroads, since it was a money losing venture. The freight rail industry did, almost literally, come begging to Congress and President Nixon to help them - which is why Amtrak was created. The freight railroad were so desperate for relief from the passenger service requirements that they signed away massive concessions (they had to give away their passenger fleets for free, and ensure that Amtrak gets to use all of their tracks for free).
Second, there never was - and never could be - a "private rail industry." It was, up until Amtrak, tied completely to freight rail.
Third, it was then and remains today a vital service - as demonstrated by the fact that Amtrak's ridership has been growing by leaps and bounds every year for a decade. While there was definitely a slip in passenger rail usage (I blame Eisenhower and the interstate, but that's just me), it has always been an integral part of America's multimodal transportation network.