I am going to try this again. My first two post were deleted by a moderator.
Mr. Phillips starts his column by making a claim that people who love trains were greatly pleased by a recent event. Well, I certainly love trains, and I've subscribed to Trains Magazine for around 45 years now.
But I was not greatly pleased by what happened. In fact, I was downright displeased.
If Phillips wants to express his opinions that's his right. But I don't not want him grouping me in with others who think differently than myself. For Phillips to do so was "unfactual". He can have his own opinions, but not his own facts.
I haven't got my issue yet.
Read your other post, then tried finding it. Wonder how long before the censors delete this one?
I take it your not supposed to confront the article from the guy. Wonder if they have something to hide? Do they risk hurting his feelings or offending someone thats been loyal to TRAINS for 45 years? I'd say write to the magazine but I think we know where that end up.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
Once again, I got up out of my uncomfortable puter chair and hunted down MY Trains magazine from the Driver.
My opinion is that you are probably taking a political approach, whereas I found no such feeling in the article. I always enjoy his column and this one is no different. He is stating facts as they are and cautioning people to not get their hopes up as a change in the big office may not mean a change in the situation with Amtrak.
There are differences between D & R and to me, he is pointing out some those differences. No more, no less.
Mook
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Kathi Kube wrote:Hmmm. I'm puzzled. Primarily, I'm puzzled to know who deleted the earlier threads and their reasoning. That said, I can see why you might disagree with Phillips — people do, and that's one of the great things about our country: We can disagree with one another. I'm also puzzled, though, about why you think he made up facts. He wrote, "When the word went out that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware was to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains." He didn't say all people who love trains rejoiced, just that an unknown number of people who love trains were very happy. And that's true. More importantly, though, Phillips cautioned readers not to jump to conclusions and believe that just because Biden rides and likes trains that our world will change and railroads will be swimming in financial and political good times. That's a way over-simplification that unfortunately is very prevalent in some railfans' thoughts. Not all. Just some. And that's who Phillips is addressing.As for the other concerns about censoring, wondering if we have something to hide, and assuming where correspondence with the magazine will end up, I can't assure you strongly enough that the editorial staff has nothing to hide and we absolutely do care what you and all of our readers think. Please don't think for a moment that we don't. Again, I'm not sure who censored the earlier messages or why. But I'll talk with Bergie when I get a chance and ask him about the process. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to email or write us whenever you want. We care and we're listening.Kathi KubeManaging editor
I just PM'd you with the emails notifying me of the deletions.
The quote about people who love trains shouting praise for Senator Biden is inclusive. It does not say "some people who love trains" or even "many people who love trains". It says people who love trains shouted praise. I would guess that Phillips just can't imagine anyone who "loves trains" not wanting the government to a appropriate large sums of money for anything on steel rails. So he wrote an inclusive statement that unforetunately, and wrongly, included me. That's what I meant by him being "Unfactual".
Phillips does a generally politically oriented column and he brings to it a left of center view. That's fine. He can write and you can publish what you want.
But if it's in your magazine shouldn't we be able to discuss what he writes here?
.....I look forward to seeing the ariticle. Maybe a bit more money spent on some passenger rail would please quite a few of us. I'm sure not all....
We each can speak for ourselves if we do so in the proper way.
Quentin
As a 30+ year reader of Trains I have always liked his colums for the most part. I remember when John Kneiling was writing Phillips seemed to be more realistic in his point of view. He didnt have as much of a anti labor union slant so I liked him better.
greyhounds wrote:I just PM'd you with the emails notifying me of the deletions.
Although I have had my wrist slapped a few times by the moderators of this forum, I will quickly and strongly agree with Kathi that the TRAINS staff REALLY DO care what we (their readers) think of what they say and how they say it. I was once honored to be invited to a "focus group" of readers hosted by TRAINS staff members and found their questions and concerns about both the magazine and this web site to be very sincere.
It was good to meet you, too, eolafan! You gave us a lot to think about that day.
I'm the one who works with Don every month on his column. And he and I have our share of lively discussions, as you might imagine.
I can see where the confusion might lie over the statement "an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains."
I did not read that statement to mean "all" people who loved trains, but I now see now how that distinction could be made. Good point.
I was a longtime reader before I got to work here, and believe me, with every story I work on, I try to put myself in the readers' shoes. I try to think about all of you as I edit the stories. I try to anticipate what questions you might ask, what you might want to know more about, and make sure we deliver that to you up front. It's not easy work--here it is Friday at 7 p.m., and I'm still in the office. And I'll be here tomorrow, too. (Drop me a line and say hi.)
But we do care about all of you.
And I love these discussions on the forum, by the way. I was privileged to meet a couple of forum members earlier this week. A great bunch of folks who care as much about what they do on the railroad as I do about my job.
Anyway, enough rambling from me. I intend to keep learning from all of you.
Matt Van Hattem
Senior Editor
I am a subscriber and I read his comment about Senator Biden. I won't go into politics, but I love trains but don't love Senator Biden.
My larger problem with Mr. Phillips is that his columns generally state that everything in Europe is fabulous and that America lags behind. Perhaps that is true in passenger trains but not in everything else.
I prefer to keep partisanship out of my train magazines. After all, Democratic Presidents have been no better for Amtrak than Republican ones.
But if Trains wants to keep allowing Phillips to bag on America, I'd prefer they open up their columns to an opposing view.
Kathi Kube wrote: ... I'm also puzzled, though, about why you think he made up facts. He wrote, "When the word went out that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware was to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains." He didn't say all people who love trains rejoiced, just that an unknown number of people who love trains were very happy. ...
I read the article today when my issue arrived in the mail and I completely disagree with your analysis of the comment you quoted above. The impression one gets when reading this statement is exactly what Mr. Phillips intended to reflect--that all people who love trains cheered when Sen. Biden was added to the Democratic ticket. These are the types of statements that Mr. Phillips routinely makes in his commentaries and is the leading reason why my Trains renewal notice (which arrived in the mail alongside the new issue) went promptly into the waste basket. Jamie
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
I have always admired and enjoyed Don Phillips' work. I do have a problem with his left leaning views which have been prevalent in a large number of his columns since his residency in Europe.
I can understand his infatuation with high speed passenger service, having ridden the TGV between Paris and Lyon, but the European model does not work for the US when one considers the average European country is roughly the size of New York state.
Add in the developements on Wall Street and in DC the past couple of weeks and national high speed passenger service seems to be even more pie-in-the-sky.
Moving hineys has, at best, been a very low margin business, but more commonly is a money loosing proposition be it train, bus, or plane. If our national leaders and representatives since the '40s had not used so much of our tax dollars for social programs, pork barrell projects, and other uses the federal government has no business funding, then a national high speed passenger railroad might be a reality today.
However, the credit card bill of past indulgences is coming due. Add in the $700 Billion national home equity line we are about to take out and it is easy to see we are too stretched as a nation to pay for high speed rail.
I am not saying high speed rail and capacity improvements for our freight railroads are not needed. But when I am older and greyer I do not want to have to tell my grandkids that we had a chance to turn this country towards becoming a pay-as-you-go country again. However we choose to keep the status quo going in DC, thus your generation is footing our bills and is truly the first generation to live at a lower standard than your parents and grandparents.
Jay
greyhounds wrote: But if it's in your magazine shouldn't we be able to discuss what he writes here?
I've mentioned this a few times in my life: If you like it tell your friends, if you don't like it try to remember it was free. As long as we don't have to pay for these fora, we don't have any right to say what we should or should not be able to do with them. If you are a paying subscriber then you do have a bit more legitimate gripe than a non-payer, but still the fora are not itemized charges on your subscription.
However the moderators should show enlightened self interest. At some point if they yank too many threads then an unknown number of paying subscribers will quit. On the other hand they should also realize that time we spend perusing these fora free of charge is time we don't devote to reading the magazine.
I lean towards Kathi Kube's and others' interpretation, where Don Phillips lack of a limiting word such as "some" or "many" doesn't mean we should add an inclusive word like "all" or "most" to the phrase "people who love trains". But at least I hope you'll agree that either interpretation has equal validity or lack thereof.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
I happen to rather like Don Phillips. One of the things he observed in Europe was that people there seem to be very politically aware. I see the article actually aimed at people who love trains who naively jumped to the conclusion that since he rides Amtrak, Senator Biden will also be a big promoter of railroad passenger service. Phillips suggests those people may be wrong.
I find it ironic that the criticism here comes from members who did not and would never praise the selection, saying that they resented the use of "people" with an implied meaning of "all people". I think the key phrase "...an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains." is a little metaphorical. (italics mine). I will say that I am somewhat in the group addressed by Phillips, (at least I felt Biden wouldn't hurt Amtrak), but I didn't do any shouting.
Frankly, I think Phillips has written a fairly objective piece. He puts things in both the plus and minus columns for each candidate and lets you decide which column is which.
I get a number of publications that contain editorials, many of which I strongly disagree. If I disliked Phillips' work, I would do what I often do-turn the page a get on the articles and other features in the publication. This month's Trains is packed with a bunch of good ones.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Phillips is a political writer. For him, the Alpha and the Omega are the politicians. Phillips keeps yapping about some "Transportation Crisis." In the words of H. L Mencken:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
This turns over more money and power to the people of Phillips' universe, the politicians.
The reality is we don't have any "Transportation Crisis", at least not one a little Ameican inginuity can't deal with. Got to move a bull. No problem, Just put him in the convertible. (And don't forget to let him out every 24 hours for food and water.)
greyhounds wrote:In the words of H. L Mencken:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
In the words of H. L Mencken:
Quite true. And then there are some people who try to scare the populace into giving money and power to a second group of politicians by using as their bogeyman "a vast conspiracy of left wing 'librul' media types" (or implications more or less to that effect).
Practical politics, as another cynic (Bismarck) expressed it, is "the art of the possible", and it - like the making of sausages, is not necessarily the prettiest of sights.
As I read Don Phillips, he basically commucated something along the lines of "Some very enthusiastic railfans thinks that gold(in the form of vastly increased federal subsidies) will be raining down from the sky onto Amtrak and passenger trains if only the Obama/Biden ticket wins. Those railfans are likely to be in for a rude awakening when reality sets in".
Which strikes me as an utterly realistic assessement. Reasonably stable democracies very seldom undergo massive upheavals in the way they are organized after an election, no matter how much noise both proponents and opponents make about how big the changes will be if only politician X (or Y) is elected".
Grin, Stein
I generally get a little annoyed with Don Phillips' editorials because of his philosophy (which seems to be the opposite of mine). I always read them because I want to understand "the other teams" arguments.
When I read the initial post in this thread I was expecting to see a blatant political statement, but then I read the article. I thought this was probably the most balanced editorial I've read by him. I didn't interpret (or even notice) the statement about "people who love trains"
Regarding this sentence:
"When the word went out that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware was to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains."
This sentence does not necessarily mean ALL people who love trains, and more importantly, the meaning is not a matter of individual interpretation. The sentence only goes so far in its meaning. The word people might mean all people, but it might not. Without a modifier specifying quantity of people, there is no quantity specified. The only implied specification of quantity is that the word people has to mean more than one person.
Bucyrus wrote: Regarding this sentence:"When the word went out that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware was to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains."This sentence does not necessarily mean ALL people who love trains, and more importantly, the meaning is not a matter of individual interpretation. The sentence only goes so far in its meaning. The word people might mean all people, but it might not. Without a modifier specifying quantity of people, there is no quantity specified. The only implied specification of quantity is that the word people has to mean more than one person.
If I were to write...
"I am highly annoyed with people who defend Mr. Phillips on this thread."
...you would interpret this to mean that I include you and your previous post in my statement, even though technically my statement could mean one, some or all of the people that have defended his writing on this thread. By the way, I am not annoyed in any way with any of the posts on this thread, I only stated that to make a point
While I do not agree with most of what Mr. Phillips writes, I do consider him a very talented writer that chooses his words with care. His omission of any qualifying words in his statement is clearly an attempt to convey the thought that all people who love trains reacted as he said when Sen. Biden was named. This is my personal opinion based on reading his columns for some time now. Of course he has the freedom to write whatever he wants, just as I have the freedom to not pay for it. Jamie
Pasadena Sub wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Regarding this sentence:"When the word went out that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware was to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains."This sentence does not necessarily mean ALL people who love trains, and more importantly, the meaning is not a matter of individual interpretation. The sentence only goes so far in its meaning. The word people might mean all people, but it might not. Without a modifier specifying quantity of people, there is no quantity specified. The only implied specification of quantity is that the word people has to mean more than one person. If I were to write..."I am highly annoyed with people who defend Mr. Phillips on this thread."...you would interpret this to mean that I include you and your previous post in my statement, even though technically my statement could mean one, some or all of the people that have defended his writing on this thread. By the way, I am not annoyed in any way with any of the posts on this thread, I only stated that to make a point
If you said, "I am highly annoyed with people who defend Mr. Phillips on this thread," I absolutely would not interpret it to mean that you are including me and my above post. Why would I? Words mean things, and my post was about the meaning of words. My post had nothing to do with Mr. Phillips.
And if I were discussing Mr. Phillips, I would not defend him because I disagree with his political position, which he conveys in his columns. Yet what I said about the meaning of words still stands.
Bucyrus wrote: Pasadena Sub wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Regarding this sentence:"When the word went out that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware was to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains."This sentence does not necessarily mean ALL people who love trains, and more importantly, the meaning is not a matter of individual interpretation. The sentence only goes so far in its meaning. The word people might mean all people, but it might not. Without a modifier specifying quantity of people, there is no quantity specified. The only implied specification of quantity is that the word people has to mean more than one person. If I were to write..."I am highly annoyed with people who defend Mr. Phillips on this thread."...you would interpret this to mean that I include you and your previous post in my statement, even though technically my statement could mean one, some or all of the people that have defended his writing on this thread. By the way, I am not annoyed in any way with any of the posts on this thread, I only stated that to make a point If you said, "I am highly annoyed with people who defend Mr. Phillips on this thread," I absolutely would not interpret it to mean that you are including me and my above post. Why would I? Words mean things, and my post was about the meaning of words. My post had nothing to do with Mr. Phillips.And if I were discussing Mr. Phillips, I would not defend him because I disagree with his political position, which he conveys in his columns. Yet what I said about the meaning of words still stands.
The first one in red includes me. I love trains. He included me in his statement. He couldn't be more wrong.
The second in red, does not include me because I don't defend Mr Phillips.
I could write, "People who love baseball, are glad the the Cubs are making the playoffs". I am including all people who love baseball. Those that love baseball are glad for the Cubs. Fans that love baseball in St. Louis are disagreeing with me because I included them in my statement.
That's the way I took it and with my quote, made it sound in a way that everybody that loves baseball, agrees with what I said.
Paul
jeaton wrote: Frankly, I think Phillips has written a fairly objective piece. He puts things in both the plus and minus columns for each candidate and lets you decide which column is which.
Well, what he wrote is "fairly objective", but it's "fairly objective" within a very narrow, unobjective, context.
Phillips has "identified" a problem, a "true" transportation crisis which is either here or "looming" depending on what month it is. (He uses "true highway crisis" in the November issue.) I'll requote H. L. Mencken: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
Phillips then identifies what is needed to deal with his "true crisis". Massive intervention and funding by the Federal Government is his only mentioned way forward. In his writings, there is no possible alternative. It's a classic. Create a "true" crisis and use it to seize more money and liberty from the populace. (Loss of Liberty = Remove or reduce the ability for each person to decide for themselves what is best for themselves without placing a burden on others.)
The narrow context objective part of Phillips' November column is in analyzing how and if each ticket will: 1) Recognize and understand the "true crisis" he has defined and, 2) create massive Fedeal involvement and spending to solve this "true crisis".
The overall unobjective part of Phillips' writings is his consistant failure to recognize other alternatives. For example, what if the Federal Government simply "did nothing"? Didn't involve itself in deciding where money was spent? Didn't make transportation choices for people and businesses? Such an alternative seems beyond Don Phillips' ability to comprehend or rationally consider.
Would everthing grind to a halt? Of course not.
Amtrak long distance trains would vanish. So what? Few people use them. But, if they're going to run, let the people who use them pay for them. Subsidized Amtrak service only makes sense in areas where there are large population concentrations. (California Service is an example.) The services in these areas do produce significant "externalities" that accrue to the people living in the area. So let the people of California pay for their own train service - it is of no value to the folks in Oklahoma.
Rail freight capacity expansion? Let the railroads ration their capacity based on price. They will make capacity expansions as needed based on rational cost-benifit analysis. Again, the people who use the services should pay for the services.
Highways? Well, first the government should return the word "trust" to the Highway Trust Fund and quit using its user fee (no tax) revenue for general purposes.
Airports? Same as rail. Let them ration capacity using a bid system for landing slots and gates. This will match expenditures for air services to actual demand far better than any government program could ever do.
Phillips' consistent unobjectivity results from his inability and/or refusal to even consider these alternatives.
And that's why I believe he could write "When the word went out that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware was to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains." Biden wants more government involvement and has stated that it's "patriotic" to pay more taxes. Phillips has no concept of an alternative to Biden's way of thinking, although alternatives do exist. People who embrace those alternatives and "Love Trains" also exist, but Phillips doesn't seem to be able to recognize or acknowledge our existance.
Soo 6604 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Pasadena Sub wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Regarding this sentence:"When the word went out that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware was to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains."This sentence does not necessarily mean ALL people who love trains, and more importantly, the meaning is not a matter of individual interpretation. The sentence only goes so far in its meaning. The word people might mean all people, but it might not. Without a modifier specifying quantity of people, there is no quantity specified. The only implied specification of quantity is that the word people has to mean more than one person. If I were to write..."I am highly annoyed with people who defend Mr. Phillips on this thread."...you would interpret this to mean that I include you and your previous post in my statement, even though technically my statement could mean one, some or all of the people that have defended his writing on this thread. By the way, I am not annoyed in any way with any of the posts on this thread, I only stated that to make a point If you said, "I am highly annoyed with people who defend Mr. Phillips on this thread," I absolutely would not interpret it to mean that you are including me and my above post. Why would I? Words mean things, and my post was about the meaning of words. My post had nothing to do with Mr. Phillips.And if I were discussing Mr. Phillips, I would not defend him because I disagree with his political position, which he conveys in his columns. Yet what I said about the meaning of words still stands. The first one in red includes me. I love trains. He included me in his statement. He couldn't be more wrong.The second in red, does not include me because I don't defend Mr Phillips.I could write, "People who love baseball, are glad the the Cubs are making the playoffs". I am including all people who love baseball. Those that love baseball are glad for the Cubs. Fans that love baseball in St. Louis are disagreeing with me because I included them in my statement.That's the way I took it and with my quote, made it sound in a way that everybody that loves baseball, agrees with what I said.Paul
When you say that Phillips included you because he said, "people who love trains," and that means all people who love trains, you are inferring that conclusion from what he said, but he did not say it. When you say, "People who love baseball, are glad the Cubs are making the playoffs," that is a true statement. There is no conflict with the fact that some people are not glad about it because the statement does not say all people are glad.
If I say, "The levy broke and ocean water poured into New Orleans," does that mean all of the ocean water poured in?
.....What is all the fuss about some writer expressing {in general, over time}, the merits of passenger trains moving people in America and that it might cost some money to do so......And maybe it might be a benefit to many of our traveling citizens.
Pasadena Sub wrote: Kathi Kube wrote: ... I'm also puzzled, though, about why you think he made up facts. He wrote, "When the word went out that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware was to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains." He didn't say all people who love trains rejoiced, just that an unknown number of people who love trains were very happy. ...I read the article today when my issue arrived in the mail and I completely disagree with your analysis of the comment you quoted above. The impression one gets when reading this statement is exactly what Mr. Phillips intended to reflect--that all people who love trains cheered when Sen. Biden was added to the Democratic ticket. These are the types of statements that Mr. Phillips routinely makes in his commentaries and is the leading reason why my Trains renewal notice (which arrived in the mail alongside the new issue) went promptly into the waste basket. Jamie
Just out of curiosity, why are you refusing to renew your subscription to the magazine because you disagree with the statements of one person, whose section of the magazine takes up 2 pages out of nearly 100 pages, and whose commentary you don't need to read if you don't want to?
Willy
I'll watch for an answer to Willy's question. That would be interesting.
I find greyhound's knowledge of what is happening in transportation lacking a lot of what really is happening . Phillips is not the only one saying there is a crisis. Many transportation planners are saying it. But there does seem to be a geographical difference in opinions concerning transportation. Those east of California and west of the Appalachians don't seem to feel the pinch of available space, the congestion in all forms of transportation, nor the pollution of the air as those on the extreme coasts find. East coast highway traffic and air quality has gotten to the point where planners say you can't build anymore. Meanwhile those operating harbor terminals are looking at what they can do for the future of there import/export traffic. There are many inside the transportation business and government agencies who have said far more than what Phillips has commented on. It is no longer a liberal/conservative, free capitalism/socialistic problem but one that has to be dealt with head on by all concerned. Burrying one's head in the sand will not make the right things happen for our transportation system's future.
And on another note, Phillips has time and time again noted the differences in the European transportation system. Railroads are very passenger oriented and highways are more freight oriented. Both are government supported. He does not necessarily condone the system, but notes why thier rails system is a better passenger system than freight system. For us, in the U.S., he warns us to think things out, plan carefully and effectively. We're not just talking Amtrak here, nor just railroads, but the need for a well planned, stratigic, viable transportation system to move people and freight utilizing all modes in a safe, effecient, economical, and environmentally adequate system. And it has to be done with a consortium and private and public monies, politics be damned!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.