QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding What polls would those be?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding zardoz: I've seen most of those newspaper articles, including the first one in today's Argus Leader, which was a full page , paid for (*paid advertizement*) "article". I'm not disputing anything mentioned in any of those newspaper items. I'm just asking futuremodal what *polls* he's talking about, as I don't recall seeing any?
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Any non-profit(NP) orginization is bound by very specific guidlines as to what it can and cannot use its resources for. It can use money outside these areas but the funds can not be co-mingled or it risks it NP status. "(The "supposedly" nonprofit Mayo Clinic? What's he implying here?)" Depending on their motivation and resource allocation they could be putting their NP status at risk.
wallyworld wrote:What began my interest in this subject was a question-Could great projects like the transcontinental railroad be built today? Instead of 1863, what if it would have been attempted in 2006? Would it ever pass the NIMBY test, enviromental impact studies, political divisiveness, and it's "speculative nature?" I think not.
From the TRAINS NewsWire for 11September 2002: I've lost count of the Rounds, but here is the latest volley in this Battle of Rochester. This one might be titled; " You're Ugly, and Your Mother Dresses You Funny!"
The concerns of the "coalition" smear campaign are misplaced, and thinly-disguised at best. The DM&E should also file a countersuit for restraint of trade.
Pop Z
PS -- The company that prepared the report for the coaltion is Bearing Point. I always wondered what the company on Phil Mickelson's visor did for humanity. Now I know.
samfp1943 wrote:"DM&E has a long history of a cavalier attitude toward safety, and these numbers illustrate that safety remains a low priority for the railroad's management," Mayo Clinic spokesperson Lee Aase said. "The FRA's own safety data suggests that an unsafe railroad should not be rewarded with a massive taxpayer-backed subsidy."
TheAntiGates wrote: samfp1943 wrote: "DM&E has a long history of a cavalier attitude toward safety, and these numbers illustrate that safety remains a low priority for the railroad's management," Mayo Clinic spokesperson Lee Aase said. "The FRA's own safety data suggests that an unsafe railroad should not be rewarded with a massive taxpayer-backed subsidy." Good point, Chances are that if DM&E is indifferent to maintaining safe standards on the physical plant already under it's control, what comfort can there be in expecting that their attitude is going to improve in respect to the taxpayer funded improvements?I'd be worried that somone might have intentions of milking the cow hard for 5 years and then let a worn and threadbare infastructure go into default, further saddling the taxpayers with 5 years of deferred maintenance as reward for their generousity
samfp1943 wrote: "DM&E has a long history of a cavalier attitude toward safety, and these numbers illustrate that safety remains a low priority for the railroad's management," Mayo Clinic spokesperson Lee Aase said. "The FRA's own safety data suggests that an unsafe railroad should not be rewarded with a massive taxpayer-backed subsidy."
Well, the opinion of the Mayo Clinic spokeperson carries absolutely no weight, and even less -- if that's possible -- because Mayo is supporting its own selfish agenda under the guise of guarding my taxpayer dollars. LOL
Consider the government laid out a lot of our taxpayer dollars in loans to the airlines at a time when their futures looked much breaker, and that hasn't backfired. Why doesn't DME deserve the same chance?
While your scenario is possible, it is equally improbable. Plus, DME is putting its assets up as collateral. This taxpayer sees DME positioning itself to tap into a virtual 'pot 'o gold' in the Powder River Basin.
PS -- I see BNSFrailfan gave you his 'danasoft' signature.
And yet another blah blah article from an oppostion organization saying that its' view is correct and everyone else is wrong. Perhaps if the railroad was allowed to upgrade their infrastructure and bring the track up to 2006 standards they wouldn't have safety problems. Seems to me the STB has said this too. And the court system.
Another interesting point about sticking it to the taxpayers. Loans need to be repaid. This isn't a grant or a corporate donation as some have stated. It is a loan, low interest yes, but a loan all the same. DME will have to pay it back.
Mayo turns to top guns to lobby against DM&E
WASHINGTON -- (Sept. 11) The Mayo Clinic has tapped a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and a former Democratic congressional leadership staffer to help it lobby against an expansion plan by the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, federal reports show.
According to Mayo's most recent lobbying report, covering activity through June 30 of this year, the clinic has spent $60,000 in lobbying against DM&E as of that date.
Mayo has enlisted the Washington law firm of Manatt Phelps & Phillips, which lists among its lobbyists on DM&E Dean McGrath, who worked as Cheney's deputy chief of staff; and James Datri, the former executive director of the House Democratic Caucus.
The clinic is lobbying against a $2.3 billion federal loan application that DM&E has pending with the Federal Railroad Administration to help pay for the expansion. Mayo argues that the increased flow of higher-speed trains through Rochester, where the clinic is based, would increase the risk of accidents and put its patients in danger.
"We've said from the outset we were going to do what we felt was appropriate to protect our patients and our staff and our community," said Mayo spokesman Chris Gade. "On the lobbying front, there's a variety of perspectives that we're using to make those points."
Stephen M. Ryan, a partner with Manatt Phelps & Phillips and Mayo's chief lobbyist on the DM&E issue, said it was no coincidence that the firm enlisted a Republican and Democrat to lobby.
"There's never a project where we're not 'D' and 'R,'" he said. "It's a Republican government, so you have to have a Republican on it. And certainly the Democrats are important."
Mayo also has other former government officials in its corner in non-lobbying capacities. Former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., joined the clinic's board of directors earlier this year, and has called on DM&E to find a route that goes around Rochester.
Also, Bill Janklow, a former South Dakota congressman and governor, is providing advice to the Mayo Clinic on the DM&E issue.
No lobbying reports for DM&E are yet on file for this year, although a complete list is not yet available. The railroad, based in Sioux Falls, S.D., did not respond to requests seeking its most recent lobby filing.
In an e-mail, DM&E spokesman Jafar Karim said the railroad "has relied primarily on our broad support from agriculture organizations, economic development groups and the 55 of 56 communities on the line supporting the project."
Before joining the Senate at the beginning of last year, John Thune earned $220,000 as DM&E's chief lobbyist over an 18-month period. After winning his Senate seat, the South Dakota Republican inserted language into a transportation bill that helped the railroad apply for the loan.
The DM&E wants to add track to the Powder River Basin coal fields in Wyoming and upgrade its existing system in South Dakota and Minnesota. The project would involve building about 280 miles of new track and upgrading 600 miles of existing track. (AP)
Hmmmm. This story just ran on the Associated Press wire. Does my sarcastic eye notice a DIFFERENT Mayo Clinic spokesman this time -- and NO mention this time of the DME's "long history of a cavalier attitude toward safety?"
Looks like Mayo is rolling out the heavy artillery over this. I just think it's cheesy to make this a sympathetic issue of "the safety of our patients." We're talking about upgrading 880 miles of track, much bigger in scope than the Mayo Clinic locale.
Poppa_Zit wrote:Well, the opinion of the Mayo Clinic spokeperson carries absolutely no weight, and even less -- if that's possible -- because Mayo is supporting its own selfish agenda under the guise of guarding my taxpayer dollars. LOL Consider the government laid out a lot of our taxpayer dollars in loans to the airlines at a time when their futures looked much breaker, and that hasn't backfired. Why doesn't DME deserve the same chance? While your scenario is possible, it is equally improbable. Plus, DME is putting its assets up as collateral. This taxpayer sees DME positioning itself to tap into a virtual 'pot 'o gold' in the Powder River Basin. PS -- I see BNSFrailfan gave you his 'danasoft' signature.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Well, the opinion of the Mayo Clinic spokeperson carries absolutely no weight, and even less -- if that's possible -- because Mayo is supporting its own selfish agenda under the guise of guarding my taxpayer dollars. LOL Consider the government laid out a lot of our taxpayer dollars in loans to the airlines at a time when their futures looked much breaker, and that hasn't backfired. Why doesn't DME deserve the same chance? While your scenario is possible, it is equally improbable. Plus, DME is putting its assets up as collateral. This taxpayer sees DME positioning itself to tap into a virtual 'pot 'o gold' in the Powder River Basin. PS -- I see BNSFrailfan gave you his 'danasoft' signature.
A. Even a broken clock is correct twice per day, so isn't it possible that Mayo can pursue it's own selfish agenda AND protect taxpayer interests as well? I don't see any hard and fast rule defining either as mutually exclusive
No one can possibly be so naive to believe Mayo is trying to do both. Please provide a record of Mayo's past efforts to protect taxpayers interests, especially those not in its own backyard.B. No, not on the simplistic terms you advance, two wrongs never make a right. So just because the government was foolish with my money involving the airlines is absolutely NO (zipp, nada, etc) reason why they have to repeat the process with a RR.
Not simplistic -- apt. United Airlines was able to get through its difficult times and use the federal loan to emerge successfully from bankruptcy. Without the loan as a Band-Aid, what would have happened if the U.S. suddenly lost its largest airline? How is that a "wrong"? The taxpayers would have been forced to come to the rescue, either way.Stupidity is not a protected minority in this country, it has no rights for equality.
If this is meant as a rip, I guess you got me. It just doesn't fit.C. Equally improbable? Ohhhh, I'd like to see your math on that assertion I think that is little more than a conveniant generalization on your part.
Convenient generalization? Naw, opinion. Present your math proving I'm wrong when there exists no comparable precedent on which to make a case either way. Why should I not think you're making a sweeping generalization here, dooming this to failure? D. Gee I coulda sworn it was the other way around, I never saw him using the sig until the day after I started. Or is that what you really meant?
No, I was just kidding around. You had it first, then he picked it up, and now he's suddenly dropped it.
Trying to pay the loan, along with the stockholders, and the employee's salaries, could get a little tense, if a rate war materializes.
Being clear that maintenance isn't particularly high on their priority list to begin with, I think the concerns are valid.
Murphy Siding wrote: It's quite possible, that the defered maintenance is a result of having no money.
TheAntiGates wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: It's quite possible, that the defered maintenance is a result of having no money.Yes, and while not making any personal accusations against any of the involved people, let me just say that if dividends are where the money goes in lieu of maintenance, some people can make themselves very rich while riding a collapsing company into the ground. (worst case scenario)It has happened before.
Like the Milwaukee Road, perhaps?????
quote user="TheAntiGates"
Hey you were the one stating "EQUALLY improbable", and since I never offered any hard quantity to begin with, I was curious about your math in determining what's equal? Seems as tho you were stretching as a matter of convenience.
Equal to it being probable, as in 50-50 chance, since it's all speculation anyway.
Deferred maintenance becomes a distinct possibility, it always seems to be where declining RR's seek their salvation.And even someone having the best of intentions could run that new plant right into the ground under such a scenario, until there was nothing left.Being clear that maintenance isn't particularly high on their priority list to begin with, I think the concerns are valid.
What backs up your "being clear that maintenance isn't particularly high on their priority list"? I hope that you're not making the mistake of interpreting an increase in safety violations as an uptick in shoddy or unsafe maintenance, without knowing whether there's been an increase in inspections. And what do those safety violation numbers actually tell us? Are they all equally severe? Equally life-endangering? "equally improbable" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. "remotely possible" seems a more apt description, but that is just me.
Choose whatever word you'd like. It's tough to assign values when we're speculating about the future.
Murphy Siding wrote:It's quite possible, that the defered maintenance is a result of having no money.
Needless speculation. The DME financials would be disclosed in the federal loan application process, which will be a matter of public record. After all, DME is using its assets as collateral for the loan.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Murphy Siding wrote:It's quite possible, that the defered maintenance is a result of having no money. Needless speculation. The DME financials would be disclosed in the federal loan application process, which will be a matter of public record. After all, DME is using its assets as collateral for the loan.
I'll agree with you there. My point was, that the Mayo group would have us believe that the DM&E folks are sitting back, watching their property crumble, and doing nothing about it. It could very well be that they have limited resources at the present, and are doing the best with what they have. That, I'm sure would certainly change, if their financial picture changed
Poppa_Zit wrote:A rate war between UP and BNSF never materialized, did it? And if there was retaliation, we'd be skating on the thin ice of collusion charges. I hope that you're not making the mistake of interpreting an increase in safety violations as an uptick in shoddy or unsafe maintenance, without knowing whether there's been an increase in inspections. And what do those safety violation numbers actually tell us? Are they all equally severe? Equally life-endangering?
A rate war between UP and BNSF never materialized, did it? And if there was retaliation, we'd be skating on the thin ice of collusion charges.
I hope that you're not making the mistake of interpreting an increase in safety violations as an uptick in shoddy or unsafe maintenance, without knowing whether there's been an increase in inspections. And what do those safety violation numbers actually tell us? Are they all equally severe? Equally life-endangering?
TheAntiGates wrote: And if that didn't work ol monkey brain could always go on TV and explain that it's really the US citizen's fault, for being addicted to electricity (coal generation) also.
And if that didn't work ol monkey brain could always go on TV and explain that it's really the US citizen's fault, for being addicted to electricity (coal generation) also.
So are you willing to set an example for all of us and disconnect yourself from the grid?
Didn't think so.
The logic doesn't make a lick of sense, but in a day and age where we claim to attack other nations to make them safe, and pretend the key to making america free is to dispense with citizens constitutional protections---what does?
So which particular constitutional protections have been yanked away from you? And which nations did we "attack" for the purpose of making them safe? Or are you addicted to a fantasy of self righteous antipatriotic abasement? You're dragging blatantly faulty political talking points into this discussion of Mayo vs The Real World for the sake of analogy, yet the analogous examples are as laughable and discredited as the Mayo hyperbole itself.
futuremodal wrote: You're dragging blatantly faulty political talking points into this discussion of Mayo vs The Real World for the sake of analogy,
You're dragging blatantly faulty political talking points into this discussion of Mayo vs The Real World for the sake of analogy,
TheAntiGates wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: A rate war between UP and BNSF never materialized, did it? And if there was retaliation, we'd be skating on the thin ice of collusion charges. I hope that you're not making the mistake of interpreting an increase in safety violations as an uptick in shoddy or unsafe maintenance, without knowing whether there's been an increase in inspections. And what do those safety violation numbers actually tell us? Are they all equally severe? Equally life-endangering? retaliation-schmalliation, with the goodguys in control of the white house and both houses of congress, it would be dismissed as "market influences" And if that didn't work ol monkey brain could always go on TV and explain that it's really the US citizen's fault, for being addicted to electricity (coal generation) also. The logic doesn't make a lick of sense, but in a day and age where we claim to attack other nations to make them safe, and pretend the key to making america free is to dispense with citizens constitutional protections---what does?Ay-YND: An "increase in inspection frequency"? LOL! THAT's where this DM&E guy messed up, he became a blip on someone's radar screen... too bad for him nyuk nyuk nyuk!
Poppa_Zit wrote: A rate war between UP and BNSF never materialized, did it? And if there was retaliation, we'd be skating on the thin ice of collusion charges. I hope that you're not making the mistake of interpreting an increase in safety violations as an uptick in shoddy or unsafe maintenance, without knowing whether there's been an increase in inspections. And what do those safety violation numbers actually tell us? Are they all equally severe? Equally life-endangering?
Most of the time, AG, you make some sense. This is not one of those times.
I thought you could do better than playing the hackneyed hole card of going political and blaming the current administration for all that irks you. How does your claim of us attacking other nations to make them safe even remotely relate to this discussion? We went into Iraq to make ourselves safer at home. Maybe we should attack the DME, then go in and rebuild its infrastructure?
You have adapted a new style -- parrying all thrusts by failing to answer sound rebuttals, choosing instead to answer with fresh rounds of attacks on minutiae.
Oh, woe is us as a species! Jeez, you're letting your sarcasm create a steaming pile of doom for you to sit in. How can one person be so disconsolate? Do you ever allow yourself to have fun?
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal wrote: You're dragging blatantly faulty political talking points into this discussion of Mayo vs The Real World for the sake of analogy, No, I'm lampooning convention.
My guess is you are lampooning yourself for the sake of keeping this ridiculous discussion going. Enough already.
I take the Mayo's critics about as seriously as I do the explanation that high oil company profits are the consumer's fault
Hmmmmm.....why do you consider *high* corporate profits to be the result of somebody's "fault"? It may suprise you, but healthy corporate profits usually correspond to a healthy economy. That's a good thing in most folk's opinion. Or would you rather have it the Dem's way - punish successful corporations to induce a recession, then we can all don the sackcloth and ashes and berate ourselves for being such infidels?
As for your other questions, you really should read more, it might help give you a deeper appreciation of the world as it happens around you.
Which of course is your classic way of avoiding an answer to the questions. I could read every one of your leftist rags till my eyes bugged out, and that still wouldn't provide the reasoning for why you can't answer straightforward questions.
BTW - I see that your AirAmerica radio network filed for bankruptcy.
That's a real shame!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.