Trains, Planes, and Nader Apocrypha
From: James Fallows
To: Ralph NaderPosted Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 1:52 PM ETWho are these people?
Hi Ralph,
Love the toaster story. That Nixon sure had a knack for making people feel at home! I remember reading about a meeting with civil rights leaders, which he began with something like, "I know that you 'blacks' enjoy music, so …"
I assume that you'll be off the Amtrak by the time you get this, although its onboard electronics are improving by the minute. I was hearted by a "Business" section story in the Washington Post today showing that D.C.-N.Y. Acela (nee Metroliner) train service has become much more popular since Sept. 11, at the expense of the Delta and USAir shuttles. To my taste, everything about the air-shuttle trip is hellish, and nearly everything about the Acela ride is productive and pleasant. You can plug in a computer the whole trip; you can read or sleep in the "quiet car" for three hours; you can walk around and get some food—and when you're done, you're in the city, rather than a slow, expensive cab ride away.
As a fan of trains, I concede that many long-haul Amtrak passenger routes just don't make economic sense. Airlines kill them on speed, busses on flexibility and cost. But there are lots of built-up, medium-length routes (on the West Coast, parts of the Midwest, etc.) where fast, modernized, convenient train service could win market support. The importance of Acela is showing that trains can be attractive, not an "eat your spinach" obligation—especially now that airline service is inefficiently slow on short routes because of security rules.
"By the way," Part 1: People are finally starting to notice that the airport screening system is a major increase in hassle for a very questionable increase in safety. For instance, this piece in the Post and this one in Slate.
"By the way," Part 2: Speaking of airplanes, is it true that you were once a pilot? Or is this part of the Nader apocrypha?
Now, leftover items:
- Interesting point about lawsuits in the mid-19th century. Here's my guess: Since practically anyone could call himself a lawyer in those days, it was easier and far cheaper to get a lawsuit going then than now. Correct? Or is there another explanation?
- Agree about Paul Farhi's piece in the Post, on the evolving role of government. The striking thing is how little of this discussion we've had. Eight months ago, "everyone" knew that "everything" had changed. Since then surprisingly few speeches, scholarly essays, articles, etc., have tried to sort out what actually is different now, especially in the meaning of "community" or "public" or the sense of "service." Maybe conditions are still changing too fast. Maybe it's cognitive dissonance with the desire to live "normally." A topic for the next presidential campaign, I bet.
- Speaking of bets, if I thought I'd be around to collect in 2050, here's why I'd put money on a change from the celibate, male Catholic priesthood. Year by year and pope by pope, the Vatican is rigid. Over the decades, it has proved quite flexible in making changes necessary to its survival. The current pope is conservative, but compared to Pius XII, less than 50 years ago, he's some kind of hippie. Clearly the American church can't survive in the long run under current rules—not just about the priesthood but also the birth control doctrine, if that were seriously enforced. So I bet the rules will change.
For the next dispatch: John Edwards, stock market chicanery, the Hubble telescope. I'll collect those extra books when you get back to D.C.
Jim Fallows
Trains, Planes, and Nader Apocrypha
From: James Fallows
To: Ralph NaderPosted Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 1:52 PM ETNotes From The Fray Editor:
Fray stars were out in force for this "Breakfast Table," proving that there's still a lot of strong feeling about Ralph Nader and the 2000 election. A post from the Ghost here, one from Kassandra here, and BML's contribution, here, all produced good threads (and some good arguments), as did Dilan Esper's contribution, below. RonK (of Seattle…) wasn't taking any prisoners on the subject of that Senator from Washington State, and other matters.
There's a nice post on trains from Lee, and the Fray team agrees with him that the train ride from Portland to Seattle is a winner: and that the trains go so slowly to those of us who have lived with European speeds. Publius makes the point that it is cars and trucks that did for the railway system, not airplanes.
Many many readers had comments on lawsuits. The problem is contingency fees says Trebor Ecilef. Econ Rocky's view is that "the largest legal cost is the loss of the business that is not done. By this I mean opportunities are missed because of perceived risks caused by the uncertainty of regulation and legal awards that could potentially be given." History Guy agrees with the Gerard Winstanley below: "Well over 90% of all lawsuits today, and I'd bet also in 1830, are debt collection actions…. The total number of cases has nothing to do with the impact of litigation on the economy." Leonard asks: If campaign finance reform kicks in and really does change the way money is raised in politics, will the Dems start to distance themselves from trial lawyers?...making tort reform more likely."
Reader Comments From The Fray:
There seems to me to be something tremendously anti-democratic about those who, like James Fallows, blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in the election. Essentially, that argument must rest on some sort of duty Nader has to stay out of the race so as to force liberal voters who didn't like Gore and didn't think he would be a good President to vote for him anyway.
I think it is quite arrogant of Fallows and other Gore supporters to say that liberals shouldn't have the opportunity to choose a presidential candidate who reflects their views. Fallows has his own vote to cast in the Presidential election; he doesn't have the right to dictate how others cast their votes. And if Gore failed to convince Nader voters to vote for Gore instead, that was entirely Gore's fault. And if we are going to cast blame, how about blaming the elites who run the Democratic Party who nominated a presidential candidate who was so weak he couldn't even carry his own state, and folks like Fallows for supporting such a loser?
--Dilan Esper
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's deliciously tempting to wonder what would happen if Nader was in office. All the corporate fatcats he'd take the hickory to--it's hard to even know where he'd begin. As obnoxious as America's energy, financial and health care oligarchs may be, however, I don't think society's ready to reach for his brand of problem solving just yet. If and when corrupt corporations and rent-seeking lobbyists become a serious drag on the prosperity and happiness of a majority of the American people, though, he'll be in for a renaissance.
By "serious", incidentally, I mean severe enough to outweigh the inefficiencies, costs, and oppressiveness of strong and intrusive government, which (as anyone but Nader himself could tell you) are quite considerable. I'd say a few more changes in the tax code, combined with 6 or 7 more Enrons would just about do it.
--Thrasymachus
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's often said the in the Good Old Days business deals were often made on a handshake, and a man was as good as his word. The first half of this statement is true. The second half is no more true than today. For that reason, the dockets of courts in the 19th century were chock full of "assumpsit" cases, occasioned by failures to fulfill promises (often not sealed with a written contract) to pay or provide goods and services. Because cash was scarce and banknotes constantly devalued or became worthless, even routine transactions were made on credit. So when someone didn't pay for that new stereo-opticon it didn't go to a collection agency: it went to court.
--Gerard Winstanley
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(5/1)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
"Skewer of Strange Tastes" and Other Dishes From the Futurist Cookbook
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Notes From The Fray Editor:
Fray stars were out in force for this "Breakfast Table," proving that there's still a lot of strong feeling about Ralph Nader and the 2000 election. A post from the Ghost here, one from Kassandra here, and BML's contribution, here, all produced good threads (and some good arguments), as did Dilan Esper's contribution, below. RonK (of Seattle…) wasn't taking any prisoners on the subject of that Senator from Washington State, and other matters.
There's a nice post on trains from Lee, and the Fray team agrees with him that the train ride from Portland to Seattle is a winner: and that the trains go so slowly to those of us who have lived with European speeds. Publius makes the point that it is cars and trucks that did for the railway system, not airplanes.
Many many readers had comments on lawsuits. The problem is contingency fees says Trebor Ecilef. Econ Rocky's view is that "the largest legal cost is the loss of the business that is not done. By this I mean opportunities are missed because of perceived risks caused by the uncertainty of regulation and legal awards that could potentially be given." History Guy agrees with the Gerard Winstanley below: "Well over 90% of all lawsuits today, and I'd bet also in 1830, are debt collection actions…. The total number of cases has nothing to do with the impact of litigation on the economy." Leonard asks: If campaign finance reform kicks in and really does change the way money is raised in politics, will the Dems start to distance themselves from trial lawyers?...making tort reform more likely."
Reader Comments From The Fray:
There seems to me to be something tremendously anti-democratic about those who, like James Fallows, blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in the election. Essentially, that argument must rest on some sort of duty Nader has to stay out of the race so as to force liberal voters who didn't like Gore and didn't think he would be a good President to vote for him anyway.
I think it is quite arrogant of Fallows and other Gore supporters to say that liberals shouldn't have the opportunity to choose a presidential candidate who reflects their views. Fallows has his own vote to cast in the Presidential election; he doesn't have the right to dictate how others cast their votes. And if Gore failed to convince Nader voters to vote for Gore instead, that was entirely Gore's fault. And if we are going to cast blame, how about blaming the elites who run the Democratic Party who nominated a presidential candidate who was so weak he couldn't even carry his own state, and folks like Fallows for supporting such a loser?
--Dilan Esper
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's deliciously tempting to wonder what would happen if Nader was in office. All the corporate fatcats he'd take the hickory to--it's hard to even know where he'd begin. As obnoxious as America's energy, financial and health care oligarchs may be, however, I don't think society's ready to reach for his brand of problem solving just yet. If and when corrupt corporations and rent-seeking lobbyists become a serious drag on the prosperity and happiness of a majority of the American people, though, he'll be in for a renaissance.
By "serious", incidentally, I mean severe enough to outweigh the inefficiencies, costs, and oppressiveness of strong and intrusive government, which (as anyone but Nader himself could tell you) are quite considerable. I'd say a few more changes in the tax code, combined with 6 or 7 more Enrons would just about do it.
--Thrasymachus
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's often said the in the Good Old Days business deals were often made on a handshake, and a man was as good as his word. The first half of this statement is true. The second half is no more true than today. For that reason, the dockets of courts in the 19th century were chock full of "assumpsit" cases, occasioned by failures to fulfill promises (often not sealed with a written contract) to pay or provide goods and services. Because cash was scarce and banknotes constantly devalued or became worthless, even routine transactions were made on credit. So when someone didn't pay for that new stereo-opticon it didn't go to a collection agency: it went to court.
--Gerard Winstanley
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(5/1)