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.
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.
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.
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.
I haven’t seen it yet, I know when things get heated politically they usually will intervene. I know we need to support Amtrak, but it’s a heated topic I’m sure so I’ll just say that no matter how it’s done, we are better off with a good national rail passenger system than without. I’ve had my troubles with them, but certainly have used them enough. When I take a longer trip and get asked why I don’t fly, knowing me I can usually just say to the person What do you think?
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.
I disagree that it was necessarily inclusive. I think his word choice was vague, but very open to interpretation depending on one’s views.
Phillips does tend to lean left in his writing, but I haven’t experienced all he has in life, so I don’t feel qualified to tell him how he should or shouldn’t feel or write. I agree with him sometimes, other times I don’t. Just like anyone else. But I always learn something from him.
Further, the purpose of a column — any column — is to generate discussion. Which brings me to your next point.
If it’s in the magazine, yes. Absolutely, positively it’s open for discussion. One caution/warning: Keep it to discussing the column, not politics in general. That, I’m sure will be yanked. But by all means talk about anything in the magazine whether you agree or not. We can take it, and love to hear/see what people think of what we’re doing.
Thanks for helping me clear this all up. BTW, has anyone looked at Phillips’ interview with Matt Van Hattem on TrainsTube yet? I haven’t, but I’ve heard great things about it. Regardless of what you think of Don’s politics, he’s really a great guy. I hope you’ll be able to see more of his personality there.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Bottom line is Amtrak is not a Democratic or Republican issue. If Biden becomes our next VP, he is going to have much more important issues to deal with than Amtrak. The worse treatment Amtrak ever received was by the Democratic party in control at the time of major funding cuts which resulted in massive nationwide cutbacks in service in 1979 & 1994.
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.
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.)
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.
[swg]
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".
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”