Appalling you say! Well Bully!

What is really appalling is the fact that we can't simply have an informative discussion on the hoped for rebirth of a railway, without someone harrassing us over some peevey agenda of their own. But most appalling of all, is that whenever the NWP is brought up, some self professed "liberal" will harrass us with his opposition to the Iraq war. What has it to do with the Iraq War! We do have the right to be free of this harrassment - so yes, the 1st ammendment can be abused.

Did Mr. Dover abuse it? Did You? Was it mindless?

Well, having actually been to war (2 years Vietnam), I too opposed going to war in Iraq - both times. I thought we should mind our own business and let the rest of the world go to hell if it wanted. But both times, the President took it to Congress, congress debated it (with access to the same intelligence sources), then overwhelmingly voted for it - both times. But since I (nor you) have access to that same intelligence and can not have access to it, without risking a grave breach of national security - WE DID NOT AND COULD NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTS. Believing in representative democracy, which I fought for, that was the end to my opposition.

One fact that is obvious to any critical thinker is the woeful lack of Presidential leadership over the matter. But also that the media coverage of the war is appalling and completely useless. WE STILL DO NOT NOW KNOW THE FACTS!

Can there be mindless use of the 1st ammendment? Duh - to Infinity!

Given that after the fact; after lives, fortunes, and sacred honor have been pledged and given to the battle, and soldiers have already sacrificed all; WHO then has the right to do anything or say anything which risks bringing about defeat, or causes those who who have died to have died in vain. - NO ONE!

The fact of war has been duly decided and is now a fact - you are arguing over a moot point. And since peace cannot be legislated (except in a naive "liberal" dreamworld), debating it now in congress is pointless. So NO! I do not care to tolerate any more obstructionism to getting it over with the only way possible - Victory!

As to those in the Senate and House who first advocated for and then voted for the war; and then voted against it after the actual shooting started and lives were lost; Bennedict Arnold did no worse!


Now Back to Railroad Issues:

Is public funding or ownership of rail infrastrure a legitimate use of government? Certainly no more so than that of our various goverments providing most of our highway and airway infrastructures. The Constitution, in its preamble, states as one of its purposes "to provide for the general welfare". It then goes on to grant congress the authority to "provide for" post roads and other facilitations of travel and commerce. It even grants congress the authority to "regulate commerce amoung the states".

This has been done in various ways at various times, sometimes by chartering private corporations, sometimes by public works, sometimes by both. What seems to be forgotten is that "goverment" has been heavily involved in rail infrastructure from the beginning; not the least of which involvement was the millions of federal dollars directly subsidizing the construction of the first transcontinental railroad - and subsequent crossings as well. Then there were the massive land grants, which were intended to permanently subsidize rail operations after construction was complete.

Above all, it should be noted that vital and central to all of our liberties, is the right to move freely from place to place, without having to ask for consent from one land owner after another. Our governments have always facilitated this from the very origin of the colonies. Even in the case of railroad easements over private property, most were created by the governmental power of "Eminent Domain" - all are protected by "deeds" (acts of government) recorded and enforced by that same goverment.

I am as devoted to the concept of "private enterprise" as anyone else on this forum, but I also recognize that sometimes, prevaling economic conditions prevent private enterprise from accomplishing some things which are vital to the general welfare and essential to our liberties. They must therefore be provided by some other means - even if directly by governments when private enterprise can't or won't.

OPB