http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:20:31 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/29/123925.php#comment-21360 Re: (3, 4) I removed the incorrect date, but my usage is appropriate. The original statement was made by William Vanderbilt and here's one version of the story: 'In the late 1880s, the New York Central railroad decided to discontinue the Chicago Limited, a fast, extra-fare passenger and mail train which ran between New York and Chicago. Reporters interviewed William Henry Vanderbilt, son and heir of the Commodore. They asked, "Don't you run it (the train) for the public benefit?" Vanderbilt's famous answer, "The public be damned"...' It gained a lot of notoriety and came to used when businesses and others did not live up to their responsibilities to their customers and constituents. 21360@blogcritics.org Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:20:31 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/29/123925.php#comment-21357 ok, I was half right. The context part was right but it was earlier than I thought - in 1883. 21357@blogcritics.org Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:38:53 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/29/123925.php#comment-21354 First, keep up the fight! Second, though, your attribution of the public be damned I believe is incorrect. As you can imagine with many anti-business quotes, its not really in context. I believe it is from a Vanderbilt decscendent running the NY Central. It was in response to a question about running more limited trains (non-stop trains, particularly between NY and Chicago) to satisfy public demand for speedier transit. The NYC exec said I believe "the public be damned, I'll run limiteds because the Pennsylvania [RR] runs limiteds". If I am right, then your date is off as well since the great business battles of the limiteds occured in the early 20th century. 21354@blogcritics.org Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:35:07 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/29/123925.php#comment-21017 I used to live in South Dakota, the place Senator Daschle still visits at least once per year and pretends is his home. Oddly (from the perspective of everywhere else I've ever been) the 89 octane fuel there was cheaper than the lower-grade 87 octane fuel. Why? Because the 89 octane fuel contains ethanol, of course, and so was subsidized in some way. No real substance to add to this conversation, sorry. 21017@blogcritics.org Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:29:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/29/123925.php#comment-20998 More ethanol means changes in farm subsidies. Anyways, I think it goes without saying that we need to become more energy self sufficient. So perhaps some wheeling and dealing can jump start all sorts of activity regarding energy production. 20998@blogcritics.org Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:58:48 EDT