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
