Terrorism

Sen. Charles Schumer Proposes to Expand Amtrak's Already Amazingly Effective "No-Ride List" to Even More People

|

You've got to kind of love Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). When he isn't threatening government regulation of the breakfast cereal industry, trying to ban Four Loko and Joose, working to ban knock-offs in the fashion industry, wanting to tax overseas call centers, attempting to censor video games, pressuring smart phone makers to drop totally legal apps that list DUI checkpoints…what was I talking about again?

Oh yeah, Schumer's latest crusade: Reducing Amtrak's passenger pool even more than the national passenger rail carrrier has managed to do in 40 years of money-losing operation:

A senator on Sunday called for a "no-ride list" for Amtrak trains after intelligence gleaned from the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound pointed to potential attacks on the nation's train system.

Sen. Charles Schumer said he would push as well for added funding for rail security and commuter and passenger train track inspections and more monitoring of stations nationwide….

He called on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to expand the Secure Flight monitoring program, which cross-checks air travelers with the terror watch list in an attempt to prevent anyone on the "no-fly list" from boarding, for use on Amtrak.

Such a procedure would create an Amtrak "no-ride list" to keep suspected terrorists off the U.S. rail system, he said.

More here. (Hat tip: Aresen)

Reason's Peter Bagge cartoon essay "Amtrak Sucks."

Schumer makes a cameo in this Reason.tv video about caffeinated alcoholic beverages, "Buzz Bowl":

NEXT: Reason Writers on TV: Tim Cavanaugh Talks Paul/Johnson GOP with Russia Today

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why would someone who wanted to harm a train ever bother to get on it?

    For example, “IED Found Near Chester, PA Train Tracks”: http://bit.ly/lOtbvg

    It would be more effective, and far less controversial, to apply these resources to increase track patrols and monitoring and the like.

    1. Doesn’t even take an IED. A solid timber or a blob of concrete at the right location could easily cause a derailment. Rails are extremely vulnerable, always have been, always will be.

      -jcr

      1. No kidding. Didn’t these people ever watch Hogan’s Heroes?

      2. Trains are actually significantly harder to derail than you might think. There used to be a neat video of WW2 US “research” on rail sabotage on Youtube but of course it’s gone now.

  2. What’s the over/under for full-scale TSA ball-tugging thuggery at rail stations?

    I’m guessing 8 months.

    1. TSA tried to screen Amtrak passengers at some stations a few months back. Amtrak police chief told them to fuck off. But who knows how long that lasts.

      1. I want to nominate that Amtrak police chief for the head of the TSA.

        -jcr

        1. I want to abolish TSA. So there.

  3. it’s too idiotic to ever happen

    1. And we all know the government avoids the idiotic…

      1. One who can’t ignore rectal also fails to avoid the idiotic.

        1. MMmmmm, it’s starting to sound expensive and invasive already! More, please!

  4. I think trains are a good idea, but Amtrak trains are not attractive. Chicago has decent trains.

    I think ridership would increase if trains and train stations were “hip,” if efficiency increased, and there were more passenger routes.

    1. I think ridership would increase if trains and train stations were “hip,” if efficiency increased, and there were more passenger routes.

      So if they were more like cars.

      1. Cars aren’t really that efficient. They’re good at getting from Point A to Point E, while stopping at Points B, C and D in-between. But they’re not that efficient when you consider the cost per passenger per mile. And, they reduce productivity because of the amount of time people spend stuck in traffic.

        1. TycheSD|5.8.11 @ 8:30PM|#
          “Cars aren’t really that efficient. They’re good at getting from Point A to Point E, while stopping at Points B, C and D in-between.”
          In other words, taking you where you want to go?

          “But they’re not that efficient when you consider the cost per passenger per mile. And, they reduce productivity because of the amount of time people spend stuck in traffic.”
          This would be a result of trains always being on time?

          Two fails.

          1. Yes, cars are convenient in situations like running errands. They’re not efficient for going to large sporting events and for commuting to work – situations where there’s a lot of traffic.

            Your second objection totally went over my head because it doesn’t make sense. Trains cost much less per passenger per mile than cars.

            1. I agree…if everyone attending the sporting event lives in the same city block. Or if everyone going to work both lives and works in the same place.

              I don’t know who you are, but you’re about to get a scientific lesson on efficiency of rail vs car travel. And boy are you going to be surprised.

              1. I’m someone who drives a car in Southern California who has been trying to figure out how to make trains more attractive because I think they’re better in a number of areas – mainly, energy use and waste reduction. There are some social benefits as well.

                1. How are they better in either area you just named? Provide links, please and be sure to provide links that justify maintenance costs and land acquisition for rights of way, costs absorbed by government subsidies and how those are to be paid for (i.e. confiscation of income by those who do not wish to use trains or rider fees?).

                  And what, pray tell, are “social benefits,” and why should we be interested in them if they come about by way of income redistribution and coercion?

                  1. I will try to obtain the backup you request, but I realize that government subsidies for train travel will not be a popular idea on a libertarian website. But governments in the past have created roads and highways and coerced people to purchase cars. Now, in most parts of the country, we almost can’t live without them. Short-sighted in my opinion.

                    I think mass transit can offer a lot of freedom in a number of cases. And, you can be a libertarian and take the train!

                    1. I guess I assumed you’d offer those links right up. You seemed so sure of your talking points.

                      And I’ll take coercion by the government to buy a car (making my own mind up with my own money) over confiscation of my income (forcing me to subsidize a mode of transport I do not want to use) any day of the week.

                      Could you just go ahead and get the obligatory “Somalia!!!” post out of the way here, please? We could all use a drink anyway.

                    2. Not sure what you mean by the “Somalia” post.

                      Well, sloopyinca (does that mean you live in SoCal too?), there are a number of studies comparing the cost and energy efficiency of passenger rail travel to travel by auto. It appears that some of these studies conflict because it’s kind of like comparing apples and oranges – especially since highways have already been built to accommodate cars. A couple of studies seem to show that if everyone drives a Prius, the “green” advantage of trains is vastly reduced, but not so if the price of fuel keeps increasing.

                      The energy efficiency of freight rail over trucks is much more clear-cut, especially as they switch to electric power. Maybe this is why Warren Buffett is so big on freight rail.

                      Here is an interesting and recent article about this issue:

                      http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007964.html

                      I will keep looking though.

                    3. Freight rail has never been questioned, although the subsidies skew the numbers dramatically. (Remember, nearly all rail companies operate with virtually no competition.)

                      I live in the central valley but get into LA about once or twice a month for work. I could never take a train because their schedules aren’t flexible enough for me and it would be much more expensive (even with the huge subsidies) for me to travel by rail.

                      I can appreciate you coming on here and discussing this, but you have been led to believe rail is more efficient than auto and that is simply not the case when you look at occupancy rates of vehicles, versatility of the auto and what happens when you reach your station (and have to go another 15 miles to reach your real destination). That’s why I said you were going to get an education. No snark intended there.

                      Stick around and you may learn a bit more about those “social benefits” you praised last night. (Or you may just learn who still has an uncircumcised penis on here.)

                    4. This article was about how government wants to make it MORE inconvenient, MORE difficult and MORE invasive of your civil rights to ride government trains. Are back-scatter scanners and TSA gropers the next step at every station?

                    5. TycheSD|5.8.11 @ 9:25PM|#
                      “But governments in the past have…coerced people to purchase cars.”

                      So your entire argument is based on the fact that you have no idea of the definitions of words? That you think you can invent new definitions to supposedly support a false claim?
                      Go away.

                    6. Maybe I should have said “coerced people into purchasing cars.”

                    7. I think mass transit can offer a lot of freedom in a number of cases. And, you can be a libertarian and take the train!

                      Oh, for the love of….

                      Mass transit doesn’t offer any more “freedom” than a transportation system built around cars, horses, or bicycles. A transportation system has to be about convenience–how easy it is to get a person from point A to point B, or perhaps point A to point R over the course of travel. How good it makes you feel is really quite secondary, which is really where the mass transit fetish comes from–a bunch of SWPL nerds who did a backpacking trip in Europe, saw a bunch of trains (and ignored all the cars) and wished everyone would adopt their goony hipster views.

                    8. and coerced people to purchase cars.

                      Sophomore at UCSD, aren’t you?

                  2. From 2006 Department of Energy Data Book, taken from Wiki:

                    US Passenger transportation

                    Transport mode Average passengers
                    per vehicle BTU per passenger-mile MJ per passenger-kilometre
                    Vanpool 6.1 1,322 0.867
                    Efficient Hybrid 1.57 1,659 1.088
                    Motorcycles 1.2 1,855 1.216
                    Rail (Intercity Amtrak) 20.5 2,650 1.737
                    Rail (Transit Light & Heavy) 22.5 2,784 1.825
                    Rail (Commuter) 31.3 2,996 1.964
                    Air 96.2 3,261 2.138
                    Cars 1.57 3,512 2.302
                    Personal Trucks 1.72 3,944 2.586
                    Buses (Transit) 8.8 4,235 2.776

                    Backs up study that says that if everyone drives a Prius, car travel beats rail in fuel efficiency – otherwise, not.

                2. They keep making cars more attractive all the time……

                3. There are some social benefits as well.

                  Clearly, you’ve never taken mass transit in a large urban area for a conceivable length of time.

            2. TycheSD|5.8.11 @ 9:01PM|#
              “Your second objection totally went over my head because it doesn’t make sense. Trains cost much less per passenger per mile than cars.”

              Yes they do. To take you where you really don’t want to go.
              If you include the costs to get you where you do want to go, they suck.

            3. “Trains cost much less per passenger per mile than cars.”

              No.

              1. You ever seen a train run the Daytona 500? It’s UGLY what they do to the track.

                Don’t get me started on drag-racing trains – DOUBLE ugly.

                TycheSD = just one more reason to hate Californians – thanks!

                *ponders which of his six personal vehicles to drive aimlessly just to waste gas and enjoy the starry night*

                1. Hey, butthole. I’m stuck in California. Don’t rub it in. However, I will be leaving shortly to enjoy an evening cruise on my new (to me) motorcycle because the weather this weekend was perfect.

                2. Hey, butthole. I’m stuck in California. Don’t rub it in.

                  However, I will be leaving the house shortly to enjoy an evening cruise on my new (to me) motorcycle because the weather this weekend was perfect.

                  1. Squirrels are running slow tonight.

                    1. Squirrels are the cause of mental retardation?

            4. Cost less… assuming your time is worthless.

              1. Replying to SRC: Many people who take the train do work or read while on the train. You can’t do that in a car, unless you’re on the phone doing work. You can do work while waiting for trains too.

                It would be hard to work while waiting for buses though, which, by the way, happen to be the fastest-growing mode of transportation right now. But you can do work while on the bus. You just have to get used to riding with other people of various types.

                1. to doing. Working on my computer while waiting at a train stop.

        2. Trains aren’t really that efficient either. They’re good at getting from Point A to Point E, while stopping at specific Points B, C, and D in-between. But they’re not that efficient when you consider that it’s impossible to have full loads because not everyone wants to go all the way from A to E. (Amtrak considers a full load to be around 60% full. Planes do much better because they’re point-to-point.)

          They also reduce productivity because of all the time and energy people spending getting to points A and E in the first place.

          Taking hybrid cars is way more energy efficient than taking the train, in the US, per passenger mile.

          For intercity traffic, cars average much higher passengers per car than for commuting; it’s over 2 passengers per car for intercity traffic, and less than 1.4 for intracity trips.

          In the US right now, for intercity trips if you drive whenever your car has at least two people in it, and fly otherwise, the difference in energy per passenger mile is trivial. (And the differences in subsidies massive.)

          1. Are you including the cost and subsidies for obtaining fuel and the subsidies and costs for building roads and highways?

            1. Gasoline taxes go a pretty long way to covering those costs, as do state taxes, local property taxes and tolls. No such animal exists for rail.

              Of course, the option of private roads never occurred to you, did it?

            2. You’re forgetting the opportunity costs — Autos being generally faster and much more flexible getting from A to B. Talking SoCal, where you are from.

            3. TycheSD|5.8.11 @ 9:19PM|#
              “Are you including the cost and subsidies for obtaining fuel and the subsidies and costs for building roads and highways?”

              Why don’t you tell us about those costs, but this time using word definitions that you don’t invent.

            4. “Are you including the cost and subsidies for obtaining fuel and the subsidies and costs for building roads and highways?”

              Are you including the cost and subsidies for obtaining fuel and subsidies and costs for building new rail lines and passenger terminals?

            5. This is probably way late on this, but comparing the cost between roadway and rail construction is always going to look bad for rail. Assuming that you’re not on structure (bridges), the costs for a 6-lane roadway are about 20-30 million dollars per mile. The costs for a 2-track rail line are over 100 million dollars per mile. If you have a lot of bridges, the roadway cost will increase more than the increase in the rail cost, but it still won’t catch up. But then rail also loses out because of the limitations of rail systems: small grade tolerances, large turning radii, requirement of much straighter right-of-way, which means that anywhere you’d want to build rail now, in a city, you’d need to buy up a lot of property.

              And for subsidies: Show me a rail system that has the guts to charge enough in fares to break even just on operating costs. There aren’t any in the US. There’s no way they’re paying back construction costs.

        3. But they’re not that efficient when you consider the cost per passenger per mile. And, they reduce productivity because of the amount of time people spend stuck in traffic.

          Hey dumbass

          Have you ever tried commuting via mass transit?

          There’s a reason why poor people buy cars as soon as they can. And it’s not a longing for sitting in traffic.

          1. Josh, you really elevate conversation around here, I can tell.

            1. Just cause he called you a dumbass doesn’t mean his point’s any less valid.

              BTW, care to link us to the study showing trains to be more efficient per mile when you account for the entire trip as opposed to station to station? I don’t know too many people who live in a train station and work/shop/drink/dine in another one.

            2. He’s fucking right.

            3. Reason doesn’t make sainthood a requirement to comment on this board, and that is pretty much what it would have taken to address your terrible point without insulting you.

              Yeah, sloopy did it, but he is beatified certified.

              1. alan|5.8.11 @ 9:20PM|#
                “Reason doesn’t make sainthood a requirement to comment on this board, and that is pretty much what it would have taken to address your terrible point without insulting you.”

                Nor does Reason require facts and logic. You can tell; TycheSD is posting here.

                1. Now, now, now. People ofter resort to ad hominem attacks, hyperbole and outright falsehoods to make their points on here.

                  We usually call them Tony, Max and MNG, and I don’t think our new poster is the same as them. He fervently believes what he is saying and is probably looking for sources to back up his assertions on rail vs car. The problem is that he has never bothered to verify them up to this point and most of his conversations about the topic have been with people who blindly agree. That’s why I’m willing to give him a pass and allow him to be educated on here without too much vitriol.

                  Of course, I could be wrong and he could be the bastard offspring of rectal and Edward, in which case I’ll remind everyone to aim for the head and always, always, double-tap.

                  1. OFTER! OFTER! What the fuck is wrong with you “sloopy”, or should I say SLOPPY?

                    Christ, your spelling is worse than Hitler’s, you fucking fascist. I hope you drown in a river of boners.

                    Have fun in the political wilderness, roads, Somalia, suck Ron Pual’s cock etc, etc.

                    Assholes.

                    1. Hahaha. Thanks for that. It’s not ofter I laugh that hard on here.

                  2. sloopyinca|5.8.11 @ 10:12PM|#
                    “I don’t think our new poster is the same as them. He fervently believes what he is saying and is probably looking for sources to back up his assertions on rail vs car.”

                    OK, that’s acceptable. I’ll take back my comment immediately above, but not my comment about inventing definitions.
                    Further hilarity will be withheld pending the ‘proofs’. At which time, I’ll laugh my ass off.

                  3. you’re the one with the spawn-I bet its one of yours

                  4. Not a he.

                    1. welcome to the club!! 🙂

                  5. People ofter resort to ad hominem attacks, hyperbole and outright falsehoods. We usually call them Tony, Max and MNG…

                    …and Episiarch and SugarFree and Warty and Heller…

            4. As you noted above it’s actually difficult to use mass transit efficiently.

              But what the hell, the social benefits for smug hipsters are way more important than the convenience of the peons, right?

              1. Replying to TycheSD

            5. When you say things like this, you are blatantly ignoring the time spent waiting on trains in your comparison. It’s either disingenuous or stupid, and we’ve all seen all the talking points ad nauseum before. Go over some older threads about trains, and especially High Speed Rail, then come back and comment if you have something new to add.

        4. That first part is among the stupidest comments I’ve seen on this board. Cars get you exactly from point A — your house, to point D — your destination, without having to use a car to get you to point B — a train station, then rent a car to get you from point C — another train station to Point D — your destination.

        5. Trains are okay if you are a filthy hippie who doesn’t actually purchase things like groceries and HD TV sets, or if you are a drone in some communist country who doesn’t expect any return on his labor, but for those of us who live in affluent societies and work to keep that society intact trains are not that useful for the stuff we do every day like buy AR-15s to keep filthy hippies off our property and minimize their threat to our way of life. With the hyperventilation over terrorist, I doubt if Amtrak would even let me carry one on board.

          1. Or if you have kids for whom the train is like an amusement park ride and you want to be assured parking. Then it’s better for day trips than a car. But you end up traveling 25 miles total (split between car and train) instead of 19 (just car).

    2. I’ve thought before that one of Amtrak’s problems is that it tries to operate like a slow airline, when it needs to operate more like an intra-city rail service that happens to travel long distances. In other words, you should not be expected to arrive 30 minutes ahead of time – 30 seconds should be fine, you should board on your own and be able to buy tickets on the train, and there should certainly not be passenger security screenings. And yes, more frequent service would be good, and might be possible with money saved on station services.

  5. Schumer gave a lecture here at Brandeis on Friday. I was the guy heckling him.

    1. video or it didn’t happen

    2. Mentioning that would likely get you a free beer in almost any bar in my state. I’d buy you a steak.

    3. He was supposed to give a speech at my college graduation at SUNY, but it was pouring rain so he just walked up to the podium and said “The first rule of politics: when the weather gets worse your speech gets shorter.” Then he tore up a piece of paper and sat back down to thunderous applause.

      He got a little smidgen of respect for not being an attention ho. Not enough to get my vote.

      1. I’m so not surprised you went to SUNY, Chris. So not surprised. I see where you acquired those mighty logic skills of yours.

        1. That depends on the campus; the spectrum ranges from Stony Brook all the way down to Albany ::shudder::.

          Seeing as how you apparently are a proud alumnus of Ad Hominem U., I don’t know if you should be talking.

    4. heller, you are doing the work the rest of us only dream of. If only we all could heckle Chuck every day.

      “Hoo hoo! ‘Chuck’! You know what that rhymes with…”

      1. Ah-nold voice “it’s not a Schumer”!

  6. I’ve been on Amtrak’s no-ride list for decades.

    1. You beat me to it. I put myself on an Amtrak no-ride list decades ago, after experiencing the wonders of breakdowns, stopping an hour for union-mandated shift changes in the middle of nowhere, arriving late at every stop.

  7. So if bin Laden said he wanted to attack shopping malls, would DHS implement a no-mallwalk list?

    1. Naah. They’d just grab your crotch if you wanted to go to the food court.

    2. ….nationalize the malls, DHS would do it.

  8. Are they going to reimburse those who are on the No Ride list their portion of the tax burden they have accumulated over the years subsidizing Am(t)rack(et)? If so, great, sign me up!

  9. Does H&R have a no-ride list? I’m not even Muslim and it takes forever to get on board.

    1. will grope your junk….

    2. You can have the squirrels pre-inspect your nuts.

  10. Look at Schumer’s moobs. The fucker would have cleavage in the right top.

    Is he Madcow’s momma or what?

    1. He’s got the titties, but like the rest of him, they don’t look like they’d be much fun to play with.

      1. The girl in the flower pants looks like she could use a dose of Tulpa.

        1. Pretty nice. Though flower pants make me a little skeptical. Good news though, Raid now comes in winter mint; just in case your options get a bit limited and you need to spray down a hippie chick for unwanted critters.

        2. I don’t think she’s with him. He may just be having her arrested for buying that fake Vuitton handbag in Chinatown.

        3. Hey Tulpa!

          You asked for THIS

          1. No I didn’t. I asked for damnings, and Radley and Matt’s pieces cited come nowhere near that.

            1. Wilkinson was an active “contributor” at the time that piece was written. There are considerably more damnings on that list.

        4. I don’t understand you sometimes, Commodore. Most of the time. Close to all of the time.

  11. It’s not an Amtrak thread without the Miami bass.

        1. The only things that could get you laid, rectal, are a bottle of chloroform, a splint, a melon-baller to pop the quadriplegic’s eyeballs out with and some high-tensile bungee cord in case his body regenerates by divine intervention enough strength to fight off your “charms.”

          1. interesting fantasy old man

          2. Needs more peanut butter.

      1. No, that’d be the ballad of J.C. Cohen.

  12. Somebody get Meatloaf a Kleenex!

    1. He needs testosterone

  13. This may sound kind of extreme, but anyone who has ever voted for Chuck Schumer should be sterilized.

      1. If you hate niggers as much as Jooz, I might be hiring.

      2. How about D-N.Y.?

    1. It doesn’t sound extreme at all, but that’s a lot of New York state you’d be sterilizing.

      1. Now that you put it that way, it doesn’t sound extreme at all. That’s just somewhere I fly over on the way to Europe anyway.

      2. I think there’s a way to that from orbit.

  14. Here in the beautiful Pacific Northwest, rail service is routinely stopped by mudslides.
    Imagine, if you will, the terror and political grand-standing we’d see if Al Qaeda caused a mudslide onto the tracks. But since Mother Nature does it, nobody cares. Eh well, eventually the only people on trains will be DHS agents, and they’ll have to search each other.

    1. Wasn’t there also an incident in Seattle where two monorails rubbed against each other so they shut them down for a year?

  15. What we need is a list of people who are not allowed to sabotage the tracks.

    1. Will my children (yes, I have kids) never know the pleasure of putting pennies (or wedges we stole from the woodshed) on the rails?

      1. There’s still plenty of freight trains.

        1. As long as there’s still boxcars to throw firecrackers in, I’ll be able to raise them properly.

          1. I am intrigued with your views on parenting and am waiting for your book to come out. Seriously, I am.

  16. Fucking Abdelkador. Why take that penalty after your team has taken over control of the game and finally has a lead?

    Fuck. I sense OT again.

    1. Whew – Wings live to fight another day. SUCK IT, REST OF THE NHL!

      Enjoying it while it lasts – I thought they’d be done by now, so these games are all a bonus for me 🙂

      1. Don’t see them getting past Vancouver or Tampa. (Fuck the Bruins)

  17. Terrorists are totally going to use Amtrak (a low passenger volume, long distance through nowhere, hours long trips, by reservation service) instead of commuter rail that requires absolutely no identification.

    And Amtrak doesn’t require identification, any motherfucker can pay the full fare on board. So the no-ride list won’t work unless they change that.

    1. Colonel_Angus|5.8.11 @ 10:37PM|#
      “And Amtrak doesn’t require identification, any motherfucker can pay the full fare on board. So the no-ride list won’t work unless they change that.”

      Give ’em a week or so.

    2. Sorry on that one, they do indeed require ID, as my blood pressure attested to during my stint of commuting from Boston to Providence.

      Caveat: no id is needed if you use their kiosk, but that requires a credit card, so it comes to pretty much the same thing.

      p.s. Can we put Shumer on the “no-breathe” list, just till he settles down?

  18. Just remember this next time someone says “Team Blue is better on civil liberties than Team Red.”

    Also: Chuck you, Sen. Fuck Schumer!

  19. >You’ve got to kind of love Sen. Charles Schumer

    No, actually: I don’t. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    -jcr

  20. I didn’t need any more convincing, so that picture of Senator Frodog Bitchtits is just icing on the cake. The cake being, of course, a giant frosted nightmare of Schumer’s incompetence, glad-handing, and moral bankruptcy.

    I’d wish him a merry eternity in hell, but he’s way too much of a scumbag for mere hell. I hope he’s sentenced to an eternity of Adam Sandler movies.

  21. Can someone please get that man a bro (or manziere)?

    1. I know, right? The man has moobs.
      I never knew.

      1. It’s never a good thing when I take one look at a man and start mentally fitting him for a bra. I’d put him at about a 40/42 on the band and a B cup.

        1. That’s in British Isles sizes, BTW.

  22. O Amtrak, magically transforming a six-hour trip into a nine-hour ordeal. It’s the Post Office on rails. From an actual conversation:

    Fellow Passenger: Do you know why we keep stopping and running slowly?

    Amtrak Employee: I doan’ know. Dey don’t tell me nuttin’!

  23. So how is this meant to work? Are we really going to go through the “ohgodpleasedontaccauseusofracialprofiling” song and dance?

    Because I see a strong chance of (1) lawsuits and (2) leftists boycotting the service unless they pretend that white right wingers are as much a danger as Islamists.

  24. Me thinks Chuckie should consider a man-bra to hold in those man-boobs.

  25. Let me be perfectly clear: Chuck Schumer is a fucking asshole. I despise that man more than most members of Congress, and I find most of them pretty damn despicable. He’s a creep of the highest order.

  26. Please, Senator Scummer, add me the “no-ride” list ASAP! I’d rather go crash somewhere else.

  27. TycheSD|5.9.11 @ 12:54AM|#
    “From 2006 Department of Energy Data Book, taken from Wiki:
    US Passenger transportation…”

    Well, that really doesn’t say much.
    Here’s the link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..sportation
    Notice that the values are based on a certain passenger-load, and nowhere is that passenger-load shown to be other than a guess.
    Further, there is nothing in that link which says passenger A got from X to Y; IOW’s it’s an arbitrary comparison between auto usage (typically ‘local’) and train transport (typically ‘non-local’)
    Once we start to compare apples to apples instead of orangutans, the numbers are quite different:
    http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsr…..eng-11.cfm
    “Autos, trips over 75 miles 99
    Amtrak 100”
    And, of course, auto usage over 75 miles will take you to your destination, not some depot where you then have to use an auto for ‘local’ transport.
    Sorry, TycheSD, you’re just one more sucker for funny numbers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.