During the debate with political Commentator Jamarl Thomas and HA Goodman. At 1:14:19 or so, Goodman said he wished Bernie gave the finger to the Democrats and joined Jill Stein. Let me tell you what that would have been a bad ideal. Lets get into the What-if-Machine and see what it would have looked like.
On that night in Philadelphia, Bernie came out and gave the "fuck you" Speech where he said and I quote "This party is acting like a bunch of Republicans." He refused to endorse Hillary Clinton and walked out of the convention. All the major corporate media ignored all the Bernie delegates the march outside, but TYT was there, as was RT to film the great march to Jill Stein and her supporters. Both Bernie delegates and Jill Stein supporters held back crowds as Bernie walked towards Jill's position. In a ceremony that happened right then and there, They both gave a small speech and entered the election together.
All during the election, Bernie tried to get into the Debates, only to be arrested even though he had 30 percent poll ratings. Donald Trump even refused to debate Hillary because Bernie wasn't there and walked away saying how the election was unfair to him and all those running.
As October rolled around, Wikileaks broke how the DCCC screwed Bernie from the beginning. A week before the election, news broke that Russian hackers gave the paperwork to Wikileaks and the DCCC made claims that Bernie, along with Jill Stein are Russian Hacks. Despite this, Bernie won 3 states, West Virginia, Vermont and Michigan.
But now the blame was in, it was Bernie's fault for the Democrats losing over a thousand seats in State Houses and Control of the House and Senate, worse off Trump was president. Reporters, being reporters hounded both Bernie and Jill asking them questions about their meeting with Putin. Both denied that Putin told them anything. Talking heads in the media, even on Fox News repeated the lie "If they just endorse Hillary, Trump would not be president."
Rachael Maddow would open her show on how it was Putin ideal to raise the minimum wage and how it was used to make sure Trump would win. She also would go on to say night after night how Bernie policies would make America weak and subservient to the Russian grab for world power.
We're all familiar with the Townhalls that Bernie did, but because Bernie didn't endorse Hillary; well they didn't happen. CNN floated the idea about a debate about healthcare with Senator Cruz, but Senator Cruz said, that it would be unconscionable to debate with the enemy. And the MSNBC Townhall in West Virginia never took place so Joe Manchin ran unopposed in the West Virginia Primaries calling all those Bernie supporters as disgusting communist.
Remember that vote about importing cheap drugs from Canada that Booker voted against? Well he not only defended his vote, he said that to vote against it was a patriotic because the ideal of importing our drugs from Canada came from Russia.
Two years later, Tom Perez is suing Bernie Sanders along with Wikileaks, the Russians, and Jill Stein for making Hillary lose. The Lawsuit claims that all those ideals of $15 minimum wage, healthcare for all and a green new deal are considered to be Russian Ideals. They claim along with RT America, that these ideals were introduced via Bernie Sanders to ruin America.
Worse, people believe that the Chemical Attacks were real and were done by Assad. The reason for this is that RT is banned in America, and TYT, Democracy Now and the Intercept are hard to find because in all of the search engines, especially Google, they show up as the last one.
I agree with the sentiment that Bernie Sanders should have given the finger to the DNC and walked out of the National Convention in Philadelphia and joined Jill Stein. But people will never know of the damage that would have been done to the progressive movement. There would be no progressive wave in Virginia state elections in 2017, there would be no Justice Democrats. There would maybe the People's Party, but they wouldn't have been supported by Cenk Uygur like they are today.
Because Bernie turned the other cheek and sucked it up and endorse Hillary. We now know that Hillary never had a chance. She refused to campaign in states that she should have won hands down. It's because of his decision of backing Hillary Clinton, that today we know that Russia didn't hack the DNC. Today, universal Healthcare, a living wage aren't these ideals associated with communist Russia, but popular and that not running on these issues confirms that you'll lose to the Republican Dr Joe Pedophilia Nazi, and he's a doctor. Sanders now has a chance of winning the presidency in 2020. Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States. Remember, that wouldn't have been possible if Bernie Sanders didn't endorse Hillary Clinton.
So you're probably asking me how did I come to this conclusion? The answer is that there's the persuasive belief that it's because of Ralph Nader that George Bush won the presidency back in 2000. Never is the fact brought up that thousand of people had their right removed by Governor Jeb Bush. This myth that Nadar is the reason for George W Bush becoming president is so prevalent in Democratic circles is why I came to the conclusssion, that thank god Bernie endorsed Hillary Clinton Just ask a Democrat that voted back then and they'll repeat the myth.
Sources:
HA Goodman Versus Jamarl L. Thomas On Question: Will Trump Will Easily Win In 2020?
https://youtu.be/6PD2kmmxsNo
Video: Green Party's Jill Stein arrested at site of Hofstra debate
https://youtu.be/v_Bfecor9Fs
The Future of Obamacare -- A CNN Debate with Sen. Cruz & Sen. Sanders
https://youtu.be/Bapp45Vx0UE
Bernie Sanders Hugs Desperate Woman After West Virginia Townhall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23ElRZGaIpg
Bernie Sanders Stabbed In The Back By Big Pharma Sellout Cory Booker
https://youtu.be/7Xgrb40gZEw
Press freedom on trial: The DNC lawsuit against WikiLeaks | The Listening Post
https://youtu.be/3Y3kF1nUUK4
No, Ralph Nader Did Not Hand the 2000 Presidential Election to George W. Bush
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/03/ralph-nader-did-not-hand-2000-election
Monday, July 16, 2018
Friday, May 16, 2014
Want to end the fear of Vaccines
Today, I came across a story that Ohio has a outbreak of the measles. This is due to the anti-vaccination crowd getting their fear out that vaccination causes Autism. With such fears running rampant, all I hear from the Skeptics Guide to the Universe (SGU) of studies that say that it don't cause autism. Yet as they say point out how foolishly the population is not taking their shots, they can't seem to grasp the reason why the anti-vaccination crowd is winning.
The Answer was conveniently pointed out on the SGU, when they played a sound bite of Vani Hari telling her first hand experience on how she removed azodicarbonamide from her diet and she felt better for doing so. So how is the myth that vaccinations cause autism? Because you have first hand accounts from parents telling the world that my kid was normal before he took the vaccine. Now instead of actually investigating the cases one by one, they ridicule them and they pointed out and rightly so how screwed up Andrew Wakefield studies was flawed, but this act is not helping out at all.
First hand experience is a stronger force than any statistic out there and to prove it, here's my experience. I rarely get a flu shot and from my last experience, I reluctantly got one back in 2011. About 2 weeks later, I was sick and missed work for a week. Now I was able to see the doctor and I got an inhaler alleviate my symptoms. But because I missed a week of work and during the busiest time of year, I lost out on money and because of that experience, I will no-longer go buy a flu shot. Now if you give me one for free, sure, I'll take it, but reluctantly because I cannot afford to miss a week of work. I have no proof that the flu shot caused my symptoms, but I can only say well I got this and after I took the shot, well this happened.
Now lets go back to the parents of the children who from first hand accounts have autism because they took a vaccine. You cannot solve this problem with a study, you cannot throw out stastics and say it ain't true because the first hand account, though rare, and probably made up, goes against what those statistics say. Autism is one of those condition as viewed as a killer for kids, He has Autism, well he's simply dead and useless, a drain on the family resources. All these parents know is that before he took the shot, my kid was fine and healthy, he took the shot, and now he's dumb and retarded. And because of these first hand accounts, we now have a measles epidemic going on in the USA.
So how do we solve this problem? We can do what we've been doing over and over again and expecting a different result which saying that these first hand accounts are untrue because we have the statistics, or we can prevent the problem of first hand accounts by providing proof to the parents and giving them first hand experience. My solution is this, before parents take their kids to get shots, we get the kids tested for Autism. With that proof, the parents can build a case if in the off chance that after the shots, they show symptoms of Autism which according to the knowledge that is already out there, quite unlikely. It's that simple, but I don't see anybody going to practice this idea anytime soon.
Sources for Story....
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/450
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eating-yoga-mats/
http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/autismwakefield.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-measles-outbreak-spreads-to-record-level/
The Answer was conveniently pointed out on the SGU, when they played a sound bite of Vani Hari telling her first hand experience on how she removed azodicarbonamide from her diet and she felt better for doing so. So how is the myth that vaccinations cause autism? Because you have first hand accounts from parents telling the world that my kid was normal before he took the vaccine. Now instead of actually investigating the cases one by one, they ridicule them and they pointed out and rightly so how screwed up Andrew Wakefield studies was flawed, but this act is not helping out at all.
First hand experience is a stronger force than any statistic out there and to prove it, here's my experience. I rarely get a flu shot and from my last experience, I reluctantly got one back in 2011. About 2 weeks later, I was sick and missed work for a week. Now I was able to see the doctor and I got an inhaler alleviate my symptoms. But because I missed a week of work and during the busiest time of year, I lost out on money and because of that experience, I will no-longer go buy a flu shot. Now if you give me one for free, sure, I'll take it, but reluctantly because I cannot afford to miss a week of work. I have no proof that the flu shot caused my symptoms, but I can only say well I got this and after I took the shot, well this happened.
Now lets go back to the parents of the children who from first hand accounts have autism because they took a vaccine. You cannot solve this problem with a study, you cannot throw out stastics and say it ain't true because the first hand account, though rare, and probably made up, goes against what those statistics say. Autism is one of those condition as viewed as a killer for kids, He has Autism, well he's simply dead and useless, a drain on the family resources. All these parents know is that before he took the shot, my kid was fine and healthy, he took the shot, and now he's dumb and retarded. And because of these first hand accounts, we now have a measles epidemic going on in the USA.
So how do we solve this problem? We can do what we've been doing over and over again and expecting a different result which saying that these first hand accounts are untrue because we have the statistics, or we can prevent the problem of first hand accounts by providing proof to the parents and giving them first hand experience. My solution is this, before parents take their kids to get shots, we get the kids tested for Autism. With that proof, the parents can build a case if in the off chance that after the shots, they show symptoms of Autism which according to the knowledge that is already out there, quite unlikely. It's that simple, but I don't see anybody going to practice this idea anytime soon.
Sources for Story....
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/450
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eating-yoga-mats/
http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/autismwakefield.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-measles-outbreak-spreads-to-record-level/
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Low Payed Teachers and the NFL Ref strike.
Hey folks, I'm happy to be back. The Christmas rush is finally over and with my hours cut in half, I have more time to write this blog. So expect a few more this month and my goal which is a biweekly post of this blog should get rolling in the month of March.
Before the new year ended, I came across some stories about how some kids, Kindergarners to be exact were getting charged with sexual harrasment. I know that prime time TV has been horny since as long as I can remember, but that nightly sitcom shouldn't be giving hints into the personal relationships of 4 and 5 year olds. At that age, we don't get why we have a penis, we just know we do and some of us know that girls just don't have one. The example I personally have is looking at the naked body of my best friend newborn sister at that age, I told her mom that one day a penis will pop out of that thing. So if I'm saying at the age of 5 that girls will one day get a penis, then I will safely assume that kids at the age of 5 don't have sex on the brain. That comes around age 11 and with growth hormones in milk, maybe age 9 today.
But this isn't the first case of stupidly happening in our public schools, we constantly hear of some stupid decision of a principal suspending a kid for the most common thing. The latest story of a kid getting sent home because of a questionable haircut. Now we're all use to these stories, after all, the first such story I heard here in San Antonio was a kid getting sent home for having the Batman symbol etched into his head. This happen when the first Batman movie came out in the early 90s so by now we are use to such stories. So instead of having the kid sit down in the back of the classroom or having a camera set up to show the parents how disruptive the haircut is, of course not, we get the kid suspended.
Now we can talk all day about how screwed up our schools an complain and complain, but here's a thought. Maybe we're under paying our teachers. Now I'm not asking for NBA type salaries, I am asking for decent wages. And to think this is not the main reason let's look to other professionals where they bring in unqualified low paid people.
Back in 2012, the NFL referees went on strike. Now they weren't complaining about the pay but the lack of replacements. While the Refs were striking, we saw the screwed up calls, and the late-nite talk shows making comedy skits of the whole debacle. But at the same time, some people did notice the simple fact that professionals are what you need for the job and ended the strike with provisions of bringing new blood into the NFL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khzSPpmCf1Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Now lets bring this back to teachers and education. Here we have an underpaid staff force to work long hours at low pay. Sure the schools like to say we'll pay for your education, but in the end, if your talented and you have a chance of getting a better job at a place that pays more, well where are you going to go? And that is what it comes down to, in business, if you want to smartest, most talented people working for you, well you're going to have to pay them, but with education, well the schools already get to much money. It come down to what the late George Carlin said, we're getting a system that keeps you smart enough to work the machines and nothing more. Lets not forget where GM put it's Volt plant, in a socialist communist country called Finland where by the way they pay their teachers $100,000+ a year. I don't know about you, but if you cannot connect the dots because you failed this back in elementary, well I can't help you.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Kerry Lost the 2012 Presidental Election.
Sorry for the lateness of my blog, but my job has been keeping me busy and since I lack a laptop at the moment, this blog will continue to be infrequent during the holidays as personal package volume increases.
A year ago, we elected a president, and we all know who won, but why? Last year, I didn't see Obama vs Romney, I saw 2004 election of Bush vs Kerry all over again. For the most part, Obama has been a continue of the Bush policies even more with more illegal immigrants sent home, and a increase of the war on terror, and a increase of surveillance via the NSA. And just like before, the opposition was very angry to the point of craziness. So when I saw Romney walk around and campaign, I couldn't help being reminded that guy was so much like John Kerry. Like before, (2004), a rich white guy came out on the platform of "anything but" the current guy in office. Like before, he try to sound like he was one of the small guys, that he was a patriot and was a better choice. But in the end, these people were chosen by the crazy fringe. The only difference in the election is that we didn't have to wait all night long for winner to be announced.
Remember those Swiftboat veterans against Kerry, well this time they had laid off workers against Romney. Kerry's problem was talking trash about the USA during war time. You can be against a unpopular war, but you better not trash talk your country at the same time. People remember that trash talking and remembered the trouble of the Vietnam veterans had coming home after that war because of that trash talking. Thus his fellow servicemen came out to campaign against such a loser. The same can be said about Romney's company laying off hard American workers and sending those jobs overseas. When Romney campaigned on creating jobs, the lot of all those who lost there jobs came out of the blue and told everyone how they lost their job because Bain Capital. The point here is that if your running for the highest elected office of the land, you better not have a history of performing non-patriotic acts.
When you have lots of money, you don't have stories of catching the biggest fish or struggling to pay the bills. And when your born into it, you don't have stories of growing up starving, or your father coming home tired and laid off. Well Kerry married a rich woman, an heir to the Heinz ketchup, so he had no problem with money. To prove he was the little guy, he said he had Blue Cross and Blue Shield when everyone knows that Congressman and Senators have free healthcare. Right before the election, he stopped in a Diner and looked so out of place that I could help but notice how much of an embarrassed fool he appeared to be. Fast forward to 2012, Romney claiming how he was one of the small guys, (rolls eyes) but this time he didn't hide his wealth because he didn't know how. He told stories only a rich kid could about when his father was Governor of Michigan and how he was embarrassed about the band behind him playing Wisconsin fight song in a parade, How he asked one of his rich relative to start a company that send jobs overseas, and how he went to play missionary in France during the unpopular Vietnam war. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Instead of a awkward moment in a bad diner, Romney choose to go shopping at a grocery store except what he purchased didn't look like what you and I buy for a BBQ. And what everyone saw wasn't him shopping, although I bet there's videos out there, what we saw was of him loading up his car with what looked like not bags of grocery, but cases of food you see on a pallet.
Now during the entire campaign and leading up to it, there was a saying "Anything But Bush" and in 2012, "Anything But Obama." The only difference between then and now was the comedy show that lead to the winner of all those primaries. I don't recall such a showing of debate after debate like in 2004, but it was there among the crazy democrats as it was thrown out in 2011 and early 2012 among the crazy republicans. Both incumbents had thing unpopular, but none the less a policy that was working in Americas favor. The Iraq war was the height of getting back at those damn muslims who attacked us on 9/11 and Affordable Care Act was the combination of years of healthcare becoming unaffordable for most Americans. Regardless on where you stood, these where the main reasons during both 2004 and 2012 elections. But as in 2004, you don't win on a platform of Anything but unless your running for mayor of Niagra Falls, NY. In the end, instead of running on actual solutions to the problems of the day, the opposition ran against the figure for good or bad. This left a hole on policy for the actual candidate that eventually won didn't win with solutions in hand for solving Iraq, or an alternative to ACA. They ran on the platform of "Anything But." It didn't matter that their guy wasn't the best choice for the job. He was simply better because he wasn't Obama or Bush. Kerry, a Vietnam vet himself running on how Iraq was a repeat of Vietnam and Romney running against his own ideal that he passed while governor of Massassuttes. In the end, it wasn't the rational people running the party but the fringe craziest picking the stupidest person out there running against a president that is for the most part popular among the people. "Anything But" the guy you hate feels great, but that just doesn't win elections.
In another two years, we'll see a similar comedy show leading up to 2016 all over again, only this time, the crazier candidate will have all the money while the rational person will be left in the dust because his/her views will not match up to the guy with all the money. Like Bush, Obama will be leaving office on the success of his major policy. Regardless of what you might think of Iraq, it lead to a favorable government to the USA in a region which has the vital resource of running our planet. Regardless of what you might think of ACA, more popular known as Obamacare, it will eventually lead to a healthier nation. I already know who's going to win the next presidential election. Like in 2008, the guy who won was the guy who was going to end the war in Iraq. The guy who going to win in 2016 is the guy who is going to improve ACA. If the Republicans want to see their candidate win 2016 for president, you better remove all those fools trying to repeal Obamacare for the 50th or 60th time and run on a platform of making healthcare more accessible for all. If the Democrats want their guy to win, you better promised to improve it instead of saying how fine it is. I'm not counting on a Third Party candidate actually winning alot of votes until after 2020. We'll continue to see the failed policy on the war on drugs drag out, we'll continue to see gun violence with assault weapons and the wars against terrorism will only be continued or increased until one of our hellfire missile hit a Chinese diplomat. I'm not betting on the highway funding being diverted to alternatives options such as transit, passenger rail and bicycles, I'm not seeing much of a change in our energy policy at all in this decade away from fossil fuels, but the change is already taking place. If your hoping for change in any of these policies, elect guy on the local and state level asking for this change, and little by little, things will change in these areas. Our national government is going to be too corrupt for any meaningful change for the rest of the decade if not more. The changes that need to be taking place are happening on local and state levels already. Gay marriage is now the law in 16 states, smoking marijuana is becoming legal and normal in many other states already. If we are going to see changes, its at the local level that well see these changes. So if your part of any group wanting these changes, focus on the local and state level for that is were we are going to see these changes take place for now.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Arlington, Texas still don't have Public Transit
Now it is noted that Arlington, TX is the largest city in the United States that lacks a public transit system even though Arlington sits right between Dallas and Fort Worth. I knew from doing research on my TransitTimes+ App on my phone, that the MAX (MetroArlingtonExpress) Bus #221 only had two stops. Further research also brought me to discover similar service in Mesquite, TX on the other side of Dallas which I didn't have the chance to ride.
I got to CentrePort/DFW station around 3:50PM in the afternoon. I got off the train (Trinity Railway Express) and proceeded to put my bicycle on the bike rack of the MAX bus. As I boarded, I notice that each row of seat had at least one person. The seats are comfortable and they do recline as they do on most express/commuter buses. As we took off, we proceeded down the freeway to Arlington, TX. Any other public transit service would have made stops along the corners of the streets it went through town but this bus did not. It stayed in the center to left lane most of the way to UTA. As the bus came to a stop in Downtown Arlington, I saw all the people get off the bus. Not all look like they were students, one person had a hard hat others looked to be regular folks.
There wasn't much to do around Arlington, The city is built for cars first and everything else is left well hanging. As I rode my bicycle around, I had my lights flashing and that seem to slow down traffic in the 12 ft lanes and stop signs I passed by. I was surprised to discovered an out of a way shop called Potager's Other stuff. An out of the way shop totally local and hippy. The Mocha I ordered turn out to be a great taste.
As I got aboard the bus again to head back to Dallas, only a hand full of people, a group of students from the Czech Republic and a middle age lady. The middle Age lady told me that she wished the service was better and made more stops but it was better than nothing. She also told me that from time to time, the bus failed to make it's connection to the TRE heading to Dallas. By the time we got back to the train station, as the bus was pulling up to it's stop, the train arrived. Everyone hurried off the bus and hopped aboard the train.
In the end, Arlington still doesn't have public transit. It is still a car oriented community with lots of car dealerships pretty much on every other block. Although the bus service is better than nothing, it is still the largest city in the United States without public transit.
Sources for the Story:
Metro Arlington Express http://www.ridethemax.com/
BikeTexas.org http://www.biketexas.org/en/news/community/1535-arlingtons-max-bus-service-starts-august-19
UPDATE:
Since I first wrote this story, they have introduced a new stop by Six Flags. Also apparently they have only 2 years of this service before the city of Arlington has to come in and pay for the service.
Sources for The Story:
Wired: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/08/arlington-texas-bus/
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Union Pacific Railroad is Handing out Traffic Tickets.
Union Pacific Railroad are Handing out Traffic Tickets
Two Weeks ago along Wetmore road, Union Pacific railroad in two locomotive units went back and forth down the track looking out for motorist who where running around down gates and sitting on railroad tracks waiting for the light to turn green.
For the most part, people are unaware of what railroad track belongs to whom and what, there are actually trains? Just go outside and go down to the nearest railroad track. Do you see a train? Probably not at all because freight rail doesn't run by a schedule at all, but when the train need to go. Since the formation of Amtrak, the general public has been separated by the trains that bring coal for electrical power, carries the grain we eat and the junk we by at Walmart. We don't even realize the significance of what happens when there's a traffic jam on a railroad track and the reason behind it. A car got hit by a train.
Union Pacific makes billions in profits per year and they intend to keep those billions coming in by reducing cost of delays. They are separated by the general public for the most part except when a train blocks traffic for a few minutes. This negative encounter usually outrages motorist because a train is blocking their path that the state transportation department gave them the right to go down and on average, adding an additional three minutes to their drive. Even a 15 second Amtrak train will infuriate motorist for blocking the road ahead. And guess what hits the idiot that decides that 3 minutes is just too much time?
When a train hits a car, it is found about a mile down the track and then the investigations starts. During that time, traffic backs up down the line. Cars can go around a car accident, but not trains. A train can't jump off the tracks and go around the down train and get back on. So Union Pacific goes out and informs the public on the local news and with a ticket or two.
Now Union Pacific does have a outreach program like it's steam train excursions that tries to connect to the general public. They even carried the Olympic Torch twice, but that don't really cut it if people are stopping on railroad tracks waiting for the light to turn green. Now Union Pacific use to have daily interaction with the public, it was called the passenger rail such as the City of Los Angeles. But now Amtrak takes that role eliminating the actual contact between the railroad and the public.
Taking look at two states, you see a difference between train and vehicle collisions. New Jersey had 387 highway-rail incidents during the last 10 years compared to Texas which had 2,498. Whats the difference other than size? Well its passenger rail. New Jersey has passenger rail mainly commuter rail operations all across the state operated by New Jersey Transit. Texas, well we have long freight trains that pass by with in 3 minutes on average. If the solution to reduce collisions is as simple as having a frequent rail passenger operations, then the occasional ticket issuing event that took place on February 3 or Steam Train excursions, then the railroad should really take this simple fact into account when trying reducing highway-rail collisions.
Now your probably asking yourself, what a minute Mr Day, Texas and New Jersey are completely different states. After all, Texas is way bigger. Yes that is true, so lets look at two counties in Texas. Dallas County which has miles of light rail, and Bexar County which has no light rail. Bexar County, the County that houses San Antonio, TX has had a total of 105 highway-rail incidents compared to Dallas County that has a total of 99. Dallas has had a change of 72.73 % in reduction compared with Bexar County of just 30.77% in reduction. Now what about Houston, after all there light rail is the most accident prone ever. Well Harris County has had a change of 61.9% in reduction over the past 10 years. In 2011, only 21 incidents were reported compared to 53 when the light rail started operations in 2002.
This is over a 10 year period and it shows that providing passenger rail services will reduce railway grade crossing accidents. This is because the public has for once a actual positive connection to the rails compared to a negative one when a freight train blocks traffic. If Union Pacific is really seriously about reducing highway-rail incidents, then they will make an effort and support the building of light rail or commuter rail in metro areas.
Sources:
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/Query/tenyr2a.aspx
http://www.ksat.com/news/Railroad-works-with-police-to-improve-safety/-/478452/8594356/-/1qfvoi/-/index.html
Two Weeks ago along Wetmore road, Union Pacific railroad in two locomotive units went back and forth down the track looking out for motorist who where running around down gates and sitting on railroad tracks waiting for the light to turn green.
For the most part, people are unaware of what railroad track belongs to whom and what, there are actually trains? Just go outside and go down to the nearest railroad track. Do you see a train? Probably not at all because freight rail doesn't run by a schedule at all, but when the train need to go. Since the formation of Amtrak, the general public has been separated by the trains that bring coal for electrical power, carries the grain we eat and the junk we by at Walmart. We don't even realize the significance of what happens when there's a traffic jam on a railroad track and the reason behind it. A car got hit by a train.
Union Pacific makes billions in profits per year and they intend to keep those billions coming in by reducing cost of delays. They are separated by the general public for the most part except when a train blocks traffic for a few minutes. This negative encounter usually outrages motorist because a train is blocking their path that the state transportation department gave them the right to go down and on average, adding an additional three minutes to their drive. Even a 15 second Amtrak train will infuriate motorist for blocking the road ahead. And guess what hits the idiot that decides that 3 minutes is just too much time?
When a train hits a car, it is found about a mile down the track and then the investigations starts. During that time, traffic backs up down the line. Cars can go around a car accident, but not trains. A train can't jump off the tracks and go around the down train and get back on. So Union Pacific goes out and informs the public on the local news and with a ticket or two.
Now Union Pacific does have a outreach program like it's steam train excursions that tries to connect to the general public. They even carried the Olympic Torch twice, but that don't really cut it if people are stopping on railroad tracks waiting for the light to turn green. Now Union Pacific use to have daily interaction with the public, it was called the passenger rail such as the City of Los Angeles. But now Amtrak takes that role eliminating the actual contact between the railroad and the public.
Taking look at two states, you see a difference between train and vehicle collisions. New Jersey had 387 highway-rail incidents during the last 10 years compared to Texas which had 2,498. Whats the difference other than size? Well its passenger rail. New Jersey has passenger rail mainly commuter rail operations all across the state operated by New Jersey Transit. Texas, well we have long freight trains that pass by with in 3 minutes on average. If the solution to reduce collisions is as simple as having a frequent rail passenger operations, then the occasional ticket issuing event that took place on February 3 or Steam Train excursions, then the railroad should really take this simple fact into account when trying reducing highway-rail collisions.
Now your probably asking yourself, what a minute Mr Day, Texas and New Jersey are completely different states. After all, Texas is way bigger. Yes that is true, so lets look at two counties in Texas. Dallas County which has miles of light rail, and Bexar County which has no light rail. Bexar County, the County that houses San Antonio, TX has had a total of 105 highway-rail incidents compared to Dallas County that has a total of 99. Dallas has had a change of 72.73 % in reduction compared with Bexar County of just 30.77% in reduction. Now what about Houston, after all there light rail is the most accident prone ever. Well Harris County has had a change of 61.9% in reduction over the past 10 years. In 2011, only 21 incidents were reported compared to 53 when the light rail started operations in 2002.
This is over a 10 year period and it shows that providing passenger rail services will reduce railway grade crossing accidents. This is because the public has for once a actual positive connection to the rails compared to a negative one when a freight train blocks traffic. If Union Pacific is really seriously about reducing highway-rail incidents, then they will make an effort and support the building of light rail or commuter rail in metro areas.
Sources:
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/Query/tenyr2a.aspx
http://www.ksat.com/news/Railroad-works-with-police-to-improve-safety/-/478452/8594356/-/1qfvoi/-/index.html
Monday, February 6, 2012
It Doesn't Matter, YOUR ANTI TRANSIT.
In San Antonio, the city I call home, somebody by the name of George Rodriguez of the SA Toll Party is threatening to sue the County against the Rail Streetcar Project in San Antonio, Texas. Apparently the majority of the funding comes from the Advance Transportation District (ATD), a district that was voted for by the public to raise the sales tax by 1/8 cent sales tax to pay not just for public transit, but for streets and highway improvements as well. According to them, we were told that this wasn't going to be used for light rail and well it ain't. But since these people are not keen on the definitions of different types of rail, they wouldn't know the difference in the first place. If ATD money was being used for a High Speed Rail station in San Antonio, they would still sue claiming that the money was being taken away from roads and being used for Light Rail.
For the most part, I've been against Toll Roads because they would be sold to foreign companies to began with. How unAmerican is that, selling your highway system to a corporation from overseas. But I'm willing to change my position in opposition of the SA Toll Party if they bring this law suit against the County. For the first time in living memory, VIA are committing funds to a transit route that will never be removed, that will not go away but be there for decades to come.
The people who are against the Light Rail to began with use every single tactic in their arsenal to halt a project from getting off the ground. They will point out how inefficient it is. How costly the rail vehicles are and most of all, they will point out the fact that more buses will do a better job. Well if that's the case, why are we as a nation, cutting the more efficient, cheaper bus lines?
In this video from ReasonTV titled, “17 Miles in Just 78 Minutes! Light Rail vs Reality in LA” he used the famed pop up video routine to point out all the faults with the Los Angeles transit System. 1St, he point out how there's no train to the Airport. Second, the point out how While The Train appears fuler during rush hour, it runs all day and night at much lower capacity. Third, he points out how buses are cheaper, flexable and better. (Remember that word FLEXABLE) And finally, he points to the false fact that it is not energy efficient.
Let me point out to why sir, you have a fuck up Los Angeles Public Transit System....
1. After WWII, the transit company tore up all the Light rail lines in the first place in favor of more cheaper efficient, flexible buses.
2. Using old data on how non Energy efficient rail lines are is like pointing to an airplane and telling me how it uses less gasoline than a family driving cross country. This old data which by the way comes from Galveston, TX Streetcar, doesn't even show the actual data on how fuel efficient it really is. Instead they point to the number of people it caries on average compared to a car. They use the fact that it ain't carrying maximum number of people against the amount of fuel it uses per weight. If this was a true, then the Major Freight Railroads of the North America could no longer be in business because I guarantee you, they wouldn't be able to compete against to more fuel efficient trucks. But we are lead to believe that because it doesn't carry as much people as it suppose to, it uses more energy to get around. I guess CSX and Norfolk Southern are lying out of there with there current commercials.
3. Guess What? While Buses “appears fuller during rush hour, it runs all day and night at much lower capacity”
3. Buses are flexible all right. They're so flexible that they're flexible to be permanently removed.
In City after City across the United States of America, bus lines have been cut all together from services forcing people like me to own cars to get around because buses might appears fuller during rush hour, it runs all day and night at much lower capacity. And when we can't afford cars to get around, well we don't find work.
A news story from 2010 from the Huffingtonpost had a story on a number of people who couldn't find jobs because they didn't have cars.
But what got me going was a professional woman was demanded that she get a car before get get a job for the Milwaukee transit system.
All this in a state in where the newly elected governor touted more jobs in his campaign speech. Good luck on those jobs governor. Your going to have a lot of people who simply can't find work in the first place.
But there's another reason why people don't ride buses. Well, there not romantic at all to began with. They're bumpy, uncomfortable to ride let alone to get aboard. We all know the words to “Weird Al” Yankovic of Another One Rides the Bus. Maybe because they're perverts in the back riding the bus.
Trains have tons of songs about riding them. One of them is called the “The Red Line” by It's Casual. He didn't take the bus, he took the Subway. And then there's Thomas the Tank Engine. He beats the bus between destinations on that little island of his. Trains are simply smoother than automobiles to begin with and are more comfortable to ride.
So the next time you hear how it is more efficient, more FLEXIBLE to have buses instead of passenger rail. Always point to the fact that a bus service is FLEXIBLE enough to be permanently removed. Buses are simply not fun enough to ride. And in the end you are not being pro transit by being anti light rail, your just being anit good public transportation in general.
Sources:
Out Of Service: Milwaukee Budget Cuts Hit Bus Lines -- And Keep Residents From Jobs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/milwaukee-budget-cuts_n_844551.html
Foes threaten legal action to derail downtown streetcar project
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Foes-threaten-legal-action-to-derail-transit-2884177.php#ixzz1ldaevA3I
For the most part, I've been against Toll Roads because they would be sold to foreign companies to began with. How unAmerican is that, selling your highway system to a corporation from overseas. But I'm willing to change my position in opposition of the SA Toll Party if they bring this law suit against the County. For the first time in living memory, VIA are committing funds to a transit route that will never be removed, that will not go away but be there for decades to come.
The people who are against the Light Rail to began with use every single tactic in their arsenal to halt a project from getting off the ground. They will point out how inefficient it is. How costly the rail vehicles are and most of all, they will point out the fact that more buses will do a better job. Well if that's the case, why are we as a nation, cutting the more efficient, cheaper bus lines?
In this video from ReasonTV titled, “17 Miles in Just 78 Minutes! Light Rail vs Reality in LA” he used the famed pop up video routine to point out all the faults with the Los Angeles transit System. 1St, he point out how there's no train to the Airport. Second, the point out how While The Train appears fuler during rush hour, it runs all day and night at much lower capacity. Third, he points out how buses are cheaper, flexable and better. (Remember that word FLEXABLE) And finally, he points to the false fact that it is not energy efficient.
Let me point out to why sir, you have a fuck up Los Angeles Public Transit System....
1. After WWII, the transit company tore up all the Light rail lines in the first place in favor of more cheaper efficient, flexible buses.
2. Using old data on how non Energy efficient rail lines are is like pointing to an airplane and telling me how it uses less gasoline than a family driving cross country. This old data which by the way comes from Galveston, TX Streetcar, doesn't even show the actual data on how fuel efficient it really is. Instead they point to the number of people it caries on average compared to a car. They use the fact that it ain't carrying maximum number of people against the amount of fuel it uses per weight. If this was a true, then the Major Freight Railroads of the North America could no longer be in business because I guarantee you, they wouldn't be able to compete against to more fuel efficient trucks. But we are lead to believe that because it doesn't carry as much people as it suppose to, it uses more energy to get around. I guess CSX and Norfolk Southern are lying out of there with there current commercials.
3. Guess What? While Buses “appears fuller during rush hour, it runs all day and night at much lower capacity”
3. Buses are flexible all right. They're so flexible that they're flexible to be permanently removed.
In City after City across the United States of America, bus lines have been cut all together from services forcing people like me to own cars to get around because buses might appears fuller during rush hour, it runs all day and night at much lower capacity. And when we can't afford cars to get around, well we don't find work.
A news story from 2010 from the Huffingtonpost had a story on a number of people who couldn't find jobs because they didn't have cars.
“Across Milwaukee County, workers want jobs, and businesses want workers. Eric Isbister is the chief executive of GenMet, a metal fabricator located one blocknorth of Milwaukee county. He needs new employees -- the expansion of his business depends on it -- but he can't get them. The nearest bus stop is more than two miles from his factory. He advertises in newspapers, and regularly interviews prospective employees, but he continually runs up against the same problem. Often, he said, he'll see an interviewee's friends or family waiting in a car outside, ready to give the person a ride home. When he sees that, he knows he won't be able to hire the worker.”
But what got me going was a professional woman was demanded that she get a car before get get a job for the Milwaukee transit system.
“"She said you have to be able to drive," Schulz recalled. "I was just so dumbfounded. This was, like, the job I was meant to have."”
All this in a state in where the newly elected governor touted more jobs in his campaign speech. Good luck on those jobs governor. Your going to have a lot of people who simply can't find work in the first place.
But there's another reason why people don't ride buses. Well, there not romantic at all to began with. They're bumpy, uncomfortable to ride let alone to get aboard. We all know the words to “Weird Al” Yankovic of Another One Rides the Bus. Maybe because they're perverts in the back riding the bus.
Trains have tons of songs about riding them. One of them is called the “The Red Line” by It's Casual. He didn't take the bus, he took the Subway. And then there's Thomas the Tank Engine. He beats the bus between destinations on that little island of his. Trains are simply smoother than automobiles to begin with and are more comfortable to ride.
So the next time you hear how it is more efficient, more FLEXIBLE to have buses instead of passenger rail. Always point to the fact that a bus service is FLEXIBLE enough to be permanently removed. Buses are simply not fun enough to ride. And in the end you are not being pro transit by being anti light rail, your just being anit good public transportation in general.
Sources:
Out Of Service: Milwaukee Budget Cuts Hit Bus Lines -- And Keep Residents From Jobs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/milwaukee-budget-cuts_n_844551.html
Foes threaten legal action to derail downtown streetcar project
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Foes-threaten-legal-action-to-derail-transit-2884177.php#ixzz1ldaevA3I
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)