The Diary of A Simple Man

What the hell. I wrote to the Governor.

---

The #715 Franklin commuter train is dangerously overcrowded. On Friday, 7/13/07, there was a medical emergency in the coach next to mine; a woman had passed out. Passengers tried to notify a conductor, but there were none to be found. When a passenger tried to come into our coach looking for one, he was completely unable to pass through the aisle. I counted 33 people standing in that coach, including myself. We had to resort to trying to shout out a message to be passed down the line to the next coach. It took several minutes, perhaps longer, to finally get a conductor.

I assume that the ill woman's condition wasn't serious (I spoke to a nurse who tended to her on the train). If her condition HAD been serious, the delay caused by the dangerous overcrowding of that train could have caused a tragedy.

I've been riding the #715 Franklin from Ruggles (departing at 4:19 PM) every day for several years. In that time, I've been able to get a seat less than ten times. I'm never the only one left standing; on average, I've counted 11 standees in each coach. Usually most of us are forced to stand until the train starts clearing out at Norwood Central. That's over 25 minutes standing on a lurching train, often in conditions so crowded that some passengers have nothing to hold on to.

At the same time, the Needham Heights train which stops at Ruggles at 4:13 always has AT LEAST eight fully empty seats per coach.

I and other passengers have written and called the MBCR. We've never received any satisfaction. Conductors are usually rude and unresponsive to complaints. I wrote to Governor Romney two years ago and after five months received a form-letter response and no other action.

And don't even get me started about coaches without air conditioning! On hot days the temperature in some coaches is in excess of 100 degrees. That's a medical emergency just waiting to happen.

Passengers are angry - I know, because we chat about the lousy service we're getting. We're sick of being told that there are plenty of seats. Our eyes (and feet) tell us otherwise. We've been lied to again and again by the MBCR, told that two-level coaches can't fit on the tracks (funny, they fit well enough on later runs on the same track), and that an annual survey ensures that there are more than enough seats for all.

That's simply not true, and we know it. We see other trains which have far more seating for passengers. To be honest, a lot of us have given up complaining, because it's obvious that management simply doesn't care. I wouldn't have bothered this time, except that the medical emergency on Friday made it clear that the MBTA/MBCR's negligence is going to have terrible results sooner or later.

I hope that you'll take action on this issue. Thanks for your time.

---

I hope he'll be more responsive than Mitt Romney was.

I'm posting this because it covers something that I was going to write about a few days ago. Unlike the other letter, which went directly to the MBCR, this one is going to the head of the MBTA - it's a column he does in the Metro. I'll elaborate after the letter.

---

I've been riding the #715 Franklin train from Ruggles (at 4:19 PM) for more than three years now. In that time I have been able to get a seat less than ten times. Often ten or more people are left standing in whatever coach I'm in. The same overcrowding takes place in all six coaches. On many days the train is so crowded that people are jammed in the aisles.

Yet the #619 Needham Heights which stops at Ruggles at 4:13 always has AT LEAST eight fully empty seats per coach. Why?

Last Friday (7/13) I counted 33 people standing in my coach; it was impossible to move down the aisle. There was a medical emergency, and passengers were unable to move down the car in search of help. We had to resort to shouting to try to get the word passed to a conductor that a woman had passed out. It took ten minutes or more for a conductor to arrive. Had the woman's condition been serious, the delay caused by overcrowding could have had serious consequences.

I've spoken to MBCR employees many times in the past and filed "concerns". I've never received the least satisfaction. I've been told over and over that the annual ridership survey insures adequate seating. In this case, I'll believe my eyes rather than MBCR spokespeople who've lost all credibility.

The conductors are often rude. I've personally seen instances in which a conductor has neglected their post, leaving it up to fellow passengers to open the stairways for pregnant women and handicapped veterans - this is NOT an exaggeration.

We passengers often discuss the terrible service we receive. Many of us are paying more than $200 a month for our passes, and yet we can't get a seat until Norwood Central or later - that's 25 minutes or more spent standing, crammed elbow to elbow with other passengers.

Many of us have filed complaints, only to receive the same completely unsatisfactory responses. Frankly, we've given up making complaints. It's clear that management couldn't care less.

---

The woman looked as if she were in her late 30s, blonde, a bit chubby. A pregnant nurse managed to struggle through the crowd from our coach and reach her; so did a paramedic on the other side. There wasn't much they could do without equipment, but they monitored her. That's more than those two conductors were doing; when they finally arrived (where the hell where they?), all they did was stand there and gawk at her.

The train stopped at Readville for 20 minutes until and ambulance came and paramedics with a stretcher took the woman off. As we were waiting, several of us who were standing in the vestibule were chatting; we'd been pushed into the vestibule to allow the nurse to get through the crowd. Suddenly, a fat woman came to the door and yelled that the door should be closed to keep in the air conditioning, and slammed the door in our faces. It hadn't been particularly hot, but apparently that lard-ass felt that every little bit of AC was vital to her well-being - more vital than ordinary everyday politeness, obviously.

Jesus, I'm pissed off tonight.

Bush is refusing to answer Congressional subpoenas, claiming executive privilege.

Bush Won't Supply Subpoenaed Documents

Pretty much anyone could have seen this coming, of course. My comment over at the Post:

And so it's war between the Executive and Legislative branches. Of course this was what Rove and Cheney wanted from the beginning. I only hope that Congress has the guts to push it all the way.

Gonzales and the DC US Attorney will doubtless refuse to take action, and the SCOTUS 5 will eventually uphold Bush. But at least we'll have a record of an attempt to stop this lawless gang of criminals who've set up a dictatorship in our country.

I hope our nation survives.

Once again I've been provoked by the sheer dishonesty of a Post columnist. How ironic: I despise so many of their reporters and columnists (always excepting the excellent Dan Froomkin and Gene Robinson), but I read them because the Post, unlike so many other news outlets, allows readers to talk back.

Undercover Journalism

Kurtz was going on and on in his sanctimoneous way about how some reporters dare to make political donations - and what's more, they donate to DEMOCRATS! According to Saint Kurtz:

"The scorecard -- 125 of 144 donations to Democrats -- provides fresh ammunition to those who say the press has a liberal tilt. It's hard to argue you don't favor one party when you've just coughed up cash for that party."

I couldn't take that lying down. Particularly when Kurtz had been whining about investigative reporters who lied to get stories. It still sticks in my craw that an outstanding investigative report which shows that Food Lion TREATED OLD MEAT WITH BLEACH to make it look edible was effectively dismissed because - horrors! - the reporters LIED to get jobs in the meat department. Why, I'm sure that if they'd gone to the store manager and said "Hi, I'm an investigative journalist, may I work here for a few weeks to see how you're POISONING YOUR CUSTOMERS?" the managers would have fallen all over themselves to let the journalists in!

Anyway, here's what I wrote:

How remarkably one-sided of you, Mr. Kurtz. To detail political contributions by reporters but not by media owners and editors is to completely distort the story. That's little short of a lie such as those you decried so piteously earlier in your column.

Media owners often directly influence their newsrooms, as anyone who's followed the careers of Rupert Murdoch or the "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon would know. Reporters often self-censor or slant their stories in order to please their bosses, as you might be expected to know if you were, say, A MEDIA CRITIC.

Self-censorship and punishment of journalists who report stories which contradict the political or corporate interests of their owners have been well-documented in works such as "Into the Buzzsaw" by Kristina Borjesson.

Apparently you're not familiar with that book, nor with Messrs. Murdoch and Moon? Or perhaps you have a blind spot because so many media owners are closely tied to the inner circles of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. You do seem to have a preference for slanting stories in favor of the Republicans and the media monopoly.

The fact is that political contributions to Republicans by media owners and major stockholders vastly outweigh contributions from reporters. It's also a simple fact that journalists do NOT give up their freedom of speech, no matter what a sanctimonious hypocrite like you might say in the Post.

Why do I call you a hypocrite? Because your one-sided, ridiculously biased columns consistently support Republicans and the media oligarchy. You may not be donating cash, but you certainly donate your time, efforts, and credibility in support of a political party.

Although why you're still considered to have ANY credibility is a mystery to me. A case of one hand washing the other, perhaps? You certainly seem to have pleased your corporate masters.

It's on the first page of comments, so maybe it will get some recommendations.

Made a comment on an opinion piece today in the Post whining that corporations in the US pay too much in taxes, and should have their rates cut:

Cutting Corporate Taxes to Save America

Let me get this straight - CORPORATIONS pay too much taxes?

What do crazed corporatists like JD Foster want? When will they have a big enough share of the pie? You people have far more than the lion's share, but it's never enough.

Hell, Foster, why not just advocate putting the entire American working and middle class into a meat grinder and selling the results to China? The profits could be given to the corporations you love so dearly and serve so loyally.

You people are truly sociopathic.

The Washington Post's ombudsman is pretty much a joke. So since she's doing a chat right now, I couldn't resist commenting.

From your answers so far I suspect that you view your task here as holding the line against a rampaging mob.

I am a proud member of that mob; I frequently disagree with Mr. Hiatt's editorial positions, and feel that too may reporters are far too comfortable repeating the party line rather than pushing for the truth (with a few notable exceptions). That said, the Post website gets far more of my attention and time than any other site. Why?

Comments and chat. The chance to give feedback and actually interact with journalists and newsmakers - and to know that they are actually LISTENING - is invaluable to me.

To be honest, that's why I'm a little disappointed in this chat in particular; your answers so far have fallen into two categories, either "I'll pass that on" or a non-detailed defense of a policy which amounts to nothing more than a pat on the head.

I'd put the odds of her selecting my comment at 100 to 1, and of a substantive response at 10,000 to 1.

Later - I am surprised. She responded, and the response could be called substantive.

It struck me recently that it would be a good idea to give Senator Whitehouse some feedback and suggestions; he's been doing a good job so far, but he's not a mind-reader and some feedback seems appropriate. I AM a constituent, after all!

---

Just a note to urge you to continue pursuing testimony from Rove, Miers, Goodling, and others who are involved in this apparently wide-ranging scandal. I don't believe that the White House will ever offer serious co-operation in any way with Congress on this issue; they've made it clear that their intention is to run out the clock.

I, for one, hope to see subpoenas - even if they have to be litigated. The White House is stonewalling, and they will take any attempt at compromise or reasonableness as a sign of weakness.

Please don't back off on this issue. The perversion of the DOJ into a tool for real election fraud - unlike the fabricated stories of fraud which Republicans have been using to disenfranchise minorities and the poor - must be thoroughly investigated.

On a completely unrelated note, at the dinner in Woonsocket last year you spoke quite strongly about the EPA decision to undermine anti-pollution cases and judgements against power plants in mid-western states. I agreed with you at the time, and since then signs of global warming have become much clearer and more alarming.

Water levels around the area do not seem to be going down; every morning on my commute I see more and more lawns flooded, and they aren't drying. I realize that this is anecdotal, but given the record heat and bizarre weather patterns we've seen lately, I am VERY concerned about the world that my son will inherit - and (though this may seem over-dramatic) about the future of our species. I'll gladly support any action you take to ameliorate the global warming crisis.

Thanks, and please keep up the good work!

Of course it's just going to be read by a staffer, but I hope the basic message - subpeonas and global warming - gets passed on in some form, if only as an aggregate "constituent feedback" precis.

Today the Washington Post editorial page printed an article by Alberto Gonzales (!), defending his record. And he had the chutzpah to title it "Nothing Improper". I had to comment, although I'm sure that the sleazy, corrupt bastard will never read my comment:

---

Only the Post - or perhaps the Wall Street Journal - would lend the credibility of their editoral page (dubious as that might be, in this case) to such a serially-proven liar.

This man has betrayed his oath of office and willingly cooperated in the corruption of the Department of Justice in an attempt to convert the United States of America into a dictatorship. He is beneath contempt.

I don't know why I write these. Well, actually I do. These pundits just piss me off so much! Particularly ones like Richard Cohen, the Alan Colmes of the Washington Post editorial page.

Hmm. My original post was apparently rejected by the Post's censorware because I originally called Cohen a jackass. So I re-wrote it:

---

Now I remember why I stopped reading Richard Cohen. He's a joke. Well, originally I used quite a different (and longer) word, but the Post seems to have auto-rejected my original post for that word.

"No crime committed"? Pure GOP BS, quite thoroughly disproved by testimony under oath before Congress by Ms. Plame's superiors. Are you a liar, Mr. Cohen, or just utterly unqualified for your job?

Equally bankrupt is the argument that the Fifth can be invoked to preclude even appearing at a hearing, and that it is legitimate to use it because questioners might be meanies.

Mr. Cohen, bare-faced lying might be the fashion on the Washington Post editorial page. But I assure you that your readers know better.

Sir, your slip is showing.

If you're aspiring to be the Alan Colmes of the Washington Post, mission accomplished. The sad thing is that you probably consider that a compliment. In your mind, Colmes is probably an effective and honorable representative of the centrist-Democratic position, rather than the professional punching bag and sick joke that he actually is.

I hope that you come to realize just how contemptible your kowtowing to Republican talking points is, and that the vast majority of readers can see right through your sleazy little act.

---

Hmm. I don't believe that anyone here finds this sort of post interesting. Sorry about that. To make the post slightly more interesting, I've used my new Mii icon. Unfortunately it's from a photo of the TV screen, so the resolution sucks. Oh well.

Unbelievable.

Circuit City has proudly announced that it is firing about 3,400 employees who were paid above the market rate. They're firing them presumably because those employees made the mistake of being, you know, good employees. Or alternatively made the mistake of staying with Circuit City too long.

And they're going to replace them with new hires at a lower rate.

I'm not kidding. Here's Circuit City's news release about it, and in case they take it down, here's a key excerpt:

The company has completed a wage management initiative that will result in the separation of approximately 3,400 store Associates. The separations, which are occurring today, focused on Associates who were paid well above the market-based salary range for their role. New Associates will be hired for these positions and compensated at the current market range for the job.

So I couldn't resist writing to them at PR_Director@circuitcity.com:

---

Subject: Congratulations!

I'd like to congratulate Circuit City on your brilliant plan to "separate" approximately 3,400 store Associates and hire new ones at a lower salary.

In fact, I've decided to emulate your approach by "separating" myself as a consumer from Circuit City. I will never shop at Circuit City again, and neither will any member of my family. I'll be urging my friends to take their business elsewhere, too.

Please note, I was a fairly frequent customer, and in the past I had written positively about Circuit City in a number of online forums, as well as recommending CC to friends and family.

Your corporate behavior is nothing short of contemptible, and I will not forget it.

---

Bastards.

Incidentally, I originally wrote "fora" rather than "forums", but I revised it to the less-correct but more common form because I didn't want them to write me off as an eggheaded intellectual. I want them to worry.