Vranich the Blogger

Look who's joined the blogging world: http://replacingamtrak.blogspot.com/

You can offer Mr. Vranich your comments on his blogs by e-mailing him at: [email protected]

Yet Vranich hit piece on Amtrak, this time at Tech Central Station.

Guess his ego needed massaging.

What one of us who "didn't get off the boat" yesterday hasn't at one time along the way had a job "that didn't work out'.?

How many of us are still spewing venom at that boss or employer thirty years after the fact????

Nuff said!!!!

I visited his blog. What a bunch of blahblah. Like most bad blogs, he doesn't allow comments. That's because he doesn't want his statements discussed, disputed, or expanded upon, which is part of the point of blogging.

From what I could see - and I didn't look at it much - it was mostly a bunch of plugs for his book, although I suspect everyone who is interested in getting a copy of it probably already has one. It's not exactly a page turner

I find it a little odd that there is a lot of argument over Mr. Vranich's statements, but no substantative argument over any of his comments.

That he does not allow comments to his blog - given the arguments that I see in this post, I can understand - all that I see is name-calling and complaining.

What exactly is wrong with his views, and what is the alternative?

I think it is a given that there are problems with the current situation - and they need to be fixed. The question is how.

Mr. Vranich actually proposes a suggestion. Whether it is the right answer or not, is debatable. But to simply dismiss it, without comment or even explanation, only leads me to believe him - because he has a plan, and nobody else does (except give Amtrak more money, which isn't going to happen - particularly in light of Hurricane Katrina and possibly Rita.)

Yes - so he is a former Amtrak employee - does that not give him the right to express his opinion and views? If he is wrong, prove it. Take his points, and then argue them. Calling him "disgrunted" does not invalidate his views, nor is it any legitimate argument FOR Amtrak.

Here's some background information on Tech Central Station. It's basically a front for a Republican-connected lobbying/astroturf group.

Choice quote:

But TCS doesn't just act like a lobbying shop. It's actually published by one--the DCI Group, a prominent Washington "public affairs" firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called "Astroturf" organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot. The two organizations share most of the same owners, some staff, and even the same suite of offices in downtown Washington, a block off K Street. As it happens, many of DCI's clients are also "sponsors" of the site it houses. TCS not only runs the sponsors' banner ads; its contributors aggressively defend those firms' policy positions, on TCS and elsewhere.

The problem with Vranich is that he's a one-trick pony, who has developed a cottage industry as an Amtrak critic. He's on every lazy reporter's rolodex (or I guess I should say palm pilot) for a dependable sound byte. He's like the Buchanans, or Ann Coulter, or all the other windbags you drag out when you want someone to drone on about something - except that his drones are one track (if you'll pardon my pun).

Mr. Viranch doesn't know what he is talking about, a lot of his ideas are out right stupid. When did he really start becoming a big Amtrak Critic.

AmtrakFan wrote:Mr. Viranch doesn't know what he is talking about, a lot of his ideas are out right stupid. When did he really start becoming a big Amtrak Critic.

Such as?

Why doesn't he know what he is talking about? Reading his blog - admittedly I don't necessarily agree with him on some points (and I do on others), but his opinions appear to be methodically thought out and expressed, suggesting he does know what he is talking about. He may not be correct (in my opinion) but there is substance to his opinion.

On the flip side, Amtrakfan's quote about sounds like a sound byte or a rant, with no substance, no again there is no argument, just "I don't like this guy." Why not? Explain - which of Mr. Vranich's views do you not agree with, and more importantly why, and how could you improve upon the situation?

And don't just say "all of them", because that only suggests that - like others have suggested Mr. Vranich is a disgrunted ex-Amtrak employee - that you just have a personal vendetta against the guy, and that is the basis of your opinion - rather than any real objection to the specific ideas presented.

I won't deconstruct Vranich's ideas because to do so would tend to give them legitimacy. Similarly, real biologists won't appear on panels with "creationists" or "intelligent design" advocates because those panels are not legitimate explorations of scientific issues but rather propaganda formums for religion masquerading as science.
I consider myself a serious political thinker of left persuasion. Would Mr Wigwagfan or others suggest that I try to get interviewed by Fox's O'Reilly, so I could get ridiculed and insulted?
Mr Vranich is not a serious thinker about passenger rail. Those on this forum, and many others, have long since debunked his nonsense. To once again give him more exposure by debunking his nonsense would be about as useful as spending time proving the world is not flat.

Mr. JoeG is exactly right. In my opinion, Mr. Vranich is a silly tool. His bitter agenda does not justify a response.

JoeG wrote:I consider myself a serious political thinker of left persuasion. Would Mr Wigwagfan or others suggest that I try to get interviewed by Fox's O'Reilly, so I could get ridiculed and insulted?
Mr Vranich is not a serious thinker about passenger rail. Those on this forum, and many others, have long since debunked his nonsense. To once again give him more exposure by debunking his nonsense would be about as useful as spending time proving the world is not flat.

First of all, there is a reason I do not watch the O'Reilly Factor, because it is not a "true" debate; rather one man's ranting and raving about everything he is against. (It's ALWAYS those damn liberals... I'm sure former President Clinton somehow devised a contraption to CREATE hurricanes, too, while he was fooling around with Ms. Lewinsky...)

Secondly, I thought that this was a forum for debate, but I must be mistaken in which I can read Mr. Vranich's position statements and understand his point of view, but when I ask for the opposing viewpoint, it's just "Vranich is..." without providing a substantial opinion FOR your point of view.

Without being able to read a legitimate, infallable argument FOR passenger rail, it has made it difficult for me to support passenger rail - and as you have all seen in my messages, over the last three years I have gone from supporting Amtrak, to not supporting it. This isn't Fox News, and I do not believe in personally attacking someone for their views or harassing someone because of what they believe in. But when I can't get a simple answer as to why the opposing viewpoint is flawed, I have no choice but to accept that viewpoint as valid.

Well, Mr Wigwagfan, your argument that if nobody will refute an argument, it must be valid, leads down a slippery slope.
No one here is saying you shouldn't read any of Mr Vranich's blogs, publications, speeches, etc. Members here merely decline to argue about his output.
To me, the need for passenger rail service in the US is self-evident. I can't imagine anyone arguing about this, since even the normally pro-SUV President is now urging people to take public transportation to save gas. One can, of course, argue about particular routes, details, etc.
And, Amtrak certainly deserves lots of criticism, but everyone knows that if Amtrak were to be eliminated interstate passenger rail would be quickly gone, because getting states to cooperate is like herding cats.

wigwagfan wrote:no substantative (sic) argument over any of his comments

Namely? His comments are rants and truly have no logic to them.

What is substantiative in rants of Vranich where he compares Amtrak to a fictional railroad in the Ayn Rand book Atlas Shrugged? How does one calmly and logically counter such an argument...other than by shrugging, to be frank?

In his profile, he claims to have been a proponent of increasing service along "high-volume corridors" like Chicago-Milwaukee, LA-SD, Seattle-Portland, et al during the 1970s (where he claims that his proposals fell on "management's deaf ears", not painting a true picture of how appropriations in Congress are decided and thus how Amtrak routes are decided—Mr. Norman on this forum has repeatedly pointed out the syndrome of how that works, to wit "No Amtrak in my state, no bucks for Amtrak therefore")...IOW he does not put the blame where it lies.

His criticism of Gunn is also unjustified. He paints Gunn as a rigid conformist who is against any attempts at instituting "true reform" for Amtrak (without defining what "true reform" is) while completely ignoring exactly how Gunn has been streamlining Amtrak during his tenure—and I suspect that the only reason this is done is due to Gunn's rejection of the notion of Amtrak becoming self-sufficient, even on short-haul routes...especially on short-haul routes that continue to be underinvested in by Congress.

Criticism of Acela Express, where justified in some regards, conveniently omits the fact that the original $5 billion appropriations were cut down to $2.2 billion. No possession of "high-tech proficiencies and distinctive competencies required to design and operate high-speed trains" (from his blog) would ever outweigh the simple fact of underinvestment—and Vranich does not do a comparison of HSR capital investments in other countries, to round out the picture, at least in his blog. No mention of the more stringent FRA crashworthiness requirements introduced mid-project, either.

Mention of the infamous McKinsey Report appears again. One fav of Vranich's from that is that "long-distance routes" should be "operating only under contract with the states that want them", which would cost more taxpayer dollars in the long run, since that means that these selfsame states would have to create cross-state agencies to manage the operations, which don't exist presently and would have to come into being with the absence of federal dollars.

And of course, there are the ad-hominem attacks on "rail buffs" and "railfans" who are pro-Amtrak, as though their whole view of the situation is purely emotional and nostalgic, finishing by saying "today I believe using taxpayer funds to satisfy my emotional 'kick' in riding trains is selfish and tantamount to thievery", an emotional statement that ignores reality and actually condemns commuter rail and transit operations by extension (but no like criticism is levied at non-rail modes of transport, despite their heavy reliance on "taxpayer dollars"). It also ignores the fact that people ride Amtrak LD for transportation purposes, not for land-cruises (this remains the truth).

Should Mr. Vranich bring something substantiative to his blog, it will be rebutted with substiantive arguments in kind. I, for one, am still waiting.

Our federal government does not have an intelligent comprehensive and all inclusive plan for the transportation infrastructure of this nation.

Quite frankly, it matters not if you are pro- or anti-passenger rail. What is important is that there is a need for both surface and air transportation.

What bothers me about the current elected officials in Washington is that they do not seem to have a conception of of the importance of transportation in the United States. Rather, in the case of Amtrak, they have a skewed view that "well since it does not turn a profit...it can't be good and it must be made to go away."

That is just illogical to my way of thinking. Air transportation plays a role, bus transportation plays a role and rail transportation plays a role.

There are too many people with an axe to grind about Amtrak. It is regretable that these individuals from the Administration to the Congress to the federal bureaucracy do not seem to have the intelligence to step back and look at the big picture if you will for this nations transportation needs.