Some recent threads around here have brought up railroad maintenance practices and safety. For those interested, you may want to check out the Washington Post’s article today about how railroads are hiring relatives of Congressmen to keep new safety regulations from being passed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702313.html
Enjoy.
Take anything that originates inside the Beltway with a grain of salt the size of Mount Everest.
If you read it in The Washington Post, demand a second, competent, opinion.
f I was trying to convince a Congressman to do (or not do) anything, the last thing I would do is hire one of his relatives - and let him get a pipeline into what’s really going on. To influence a Congressman, you have to treat him like a mushroom.
Chuck
Gee, another inside the beltway instance of fudging the lines of what is ethical and what isn’t. Time to setup another investigative committee to lay down a smokescreen. Perhaps some new legislation to help our public servants do the right thing. Access is a wonderful thing especially if it creates jobs for politicos otherwise unemployable relatives.
And the beat goes on…
Washington Post, didn’t they run a column last week by William M. Arkin describing our troops in Iraq as mercenaries? Good source.
Jon [8D]
It’s ALWAYS one thing or another! What ever happened to having competent people doing what they know how to do…What’s a fella to do? I didn’t vote for most of these phobars.
If this is really going on, it’s just one more example of: “it’s a matter of who you know, not what you know”.
Sorry, I should really stay out of this, as I really don’t need another soapbox.
Since lobbying for safety is usually done by those who stand to make money in that manner, I figure the reverse is also true. And fair. I am sure the more liberal will disagree, as is their right as well. If one ever has occassion to delve into the OSHA manual, they will find it is far more motivated by the political than by safety.
Why do we really need expensive, fancy, lighted, gated railroad crossings? A sign ought to do it in a whole lot of cases. I don’t think people ought to be able to sue over something like this. Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it guarantee the right to not pay attention to what you are doing? I feel sorry for the railroad employees for the trauma they will be put through, but in the bigger scheme of things they probably just improved the gene pool. But, of course lawyers do not want to improve the gene pool.
The Washington Post attempts to run columns from columnists on all points of the political spectrum. You can always find columnists to love or hate, usually both, in an issue. They’ve done this since they have became the last surviving newspaper in Washington.
The way you dump relatives as lobbyists is to vote out the incumbents - something that should be done on a regular basis, regardless of party.
Enjoy
Paul
Maybe we can hire a whole bunch of Wal-Mart greeters to stand at crossings to wave down drivers. I suppose that would be an improvement over flashing lights, bells, and a pivoting barrier. It’s like alarming and keying one’s home against intruders…it only works for the dilettante and bored, not for the determined.
Perhaps some of K-Marts flashing blue light with a automated voice saying Attention Drivers! Train Approaching! Please Stop! Naw wouldn’t work…Hardly anybody paid attention to that old cry of "Attention K-Mart Shoppers—.[;)]
Since nobody seems to be able to drive without yackin’ on their cell phone anyway, maybe there’d be a way to break in on their conversations and have a warning:
“Hey, moron, stop! There’s a train coming!”
Clearly, ear-splitting horns, blinding/blinking headlights lights, ringing bells on the locomotive and the crossing gates, flashing red lights, and big, brightly-colored gates that block your path just ain’t enough to save stupid people from their stupidity.
I should like to think that every grade-crossing accident that eliminates a moron from the gene pool leaves the rest of us collectively smarter for it, but all too often innocent people are affected too (like the train crew, passengers in the car or train, etc.).
This morning my 2-year-old was coloring in an Operation Lifesaver coloring book. It makes railroads sound so dangerous that you’d think they were a plague upon the earth.
What about the Washington Times? It’s a better paper than msot people think.
While the Post is not as skewed a paper as say The New York Times, to say it is purely neutral is a pretty big stretch. It’s definitely a left of center paper in terms of its editorial opinions and columnist lineup.
Of course, this was a news piece, not an editorial. Those are two seperate functions at most papers (including the WP). I’m not sure what bias exists within this particular article as far as reporting. Far from “left leaning”, this article is directly pointed at Democrats whose relatives are getting money from an industry. Unless you think that all industries are Republican, you have to conclude that this article bashes the Democrats (and some politicians in general).
Also, I also don’t know if the safety issues in question have anything or everything to do with crossing accidents. The stats pointed out in the piece relate to RR miles and accident counts. Are these all crossing accidents? If so, than increased road traffic across rail lines could be the culprit. If they are not crossing accidents, then the safety concerns are well founded. By comparison, as airline miles flown and flight counts have gone up, accidents have dropped. How come the rail industry doesn’t have a comperable record of increased safety? How come safety is going down (on a per-mile travelled basis)?
Bashing a paper (“the WP is biased”) for a news article without considering its content seems a bit unfair to me.
Love it or hate it, lobbying is an entrenched part of our political system, and removing it would require new laws that NO congress is ever going to pass. In some instances, lobbying provides a real and legitimate purpose by pointing out consequences of proposed legislation that are not apparent to people outside of the affected industry or interest group. But most proposed legislation in fact dies in committee, and many pieces of legislation are floated purely and simply to obtain contributions (via lobbyists and political action committees) to campaign funds. Any professional lobbyist will tell you that once a bill is actually reported to the floor of the house or senate, no amount of lobbying in the world is then going to change the final vote. While I do not know whether the rail safety bill falls in this category or not, it is highly suspect because I believe that the bureaucracy could change many of the existing safety rules without any new legislation.
Why do I have the feeling that this is going to end up in Bergie’s Archive of Nuked Threads?
[(-D]
-George