Blackapple's Blog

 Obviously, that was absurd. But if the Army planned to slaughter all buffalo and starve the tribes into submission, it’d take more time and men than Sheridan had. Still, there’s evidence he thought it the best option: In October 1868, Sheridan wrote to Sherman that their best hope to control the Native Americans was to “make them poor by the destruction of their stock, and then settle them on the lands allotted to them.”

In the lull, enlisted men like Cody found other ways to stay busy, and to make money. Cody had joined the Cavalry at 17, and he earned the name “Buffalo Bill” because in one 18-month stretch he claimed to have killed 4,280 buffalo. In 1870, a bull hide sold for $3.50. One frontiersman, Frank Mayer, figured if he spent 25 cents on each round of ammo, then “every time I fired one I got my investment back twelve times over.”

“Bomb Train” in Ohio Sickens Residents: Railroad Cutbacks, Corporate Greed Led to Toxic Disaster

 

Public Enemy - Fight The Power (Official Music Video)

 

Former EPA head admits she was wrong to tell New Yorkers post-9/11 air was safe | September 11 2001 | The Guardian

 

Public Enemy - Can't Truss It

tom johnson 28 years a slave -

 

man imprisoned for 28 years -

The sequence of events began a decade ago in the wake of a major uptick in derailments of trains carrying crude oil and hazardous chemicals, including a New Jersey train crash that leaked the same toxic chemical as in Ohio.

 

In response, the Obama administration in 2014 proposed improving safety regulations for trains carrying petroleum and other hazardous materials. However, after industry pressure, the final measure ended up narrowly focused on the transport of crude oil and exempting trains carrying many other combustible materials, including the chemical involved in this weekend’s disaster.

 

Then came 2017: After rail industry donors delivered more than $6 million to GOP campaigns, the Trump administration — backed by rail lobbyists and Senate Republicans — rescinded part of that rule aimed at making better braking systems widespread on the nation’s rails.

 

 

 

Comments Railway Age contributor and railroad economist Jim Blaze: “Regardless of what the rail freight folks do, better braking will show up on trucks. And if the rail economics changed one or two assumptions, the break-even numbers would have turned out better.

Sadly, just one future incident in a very highly populated area would make this decision look very bad.

But someone likely calculated such odds as very remote. Now they can keep their fingers crossed and hope the actuary assumptions were not wrong. It’s a betting game, one that doesn’t view a high-growth business outlook. So, they play conservative. Lacking evidence that counters the possible risk, the regulators backed down. They too, like railroaders, don’t see a growth business case need. In the end, it signals an outlook for the industry—strategically, a ‘milking’ strategy.  It is legal to think that way. But then, don’t confuse it with story lines about growth.”

This time I know it's real