Archive for June, 2009

Self-sacrifice does not always come from a bullet

Friday, June 26th, 2009

From an email:

On Tuesday at 8 a.m., I will stand trial for speaking three truthful words: “I am gay.”

On Tuesday, I will face a panel of colonels who will decide whether or not to fire me — to discharge me for “moral and professional dereliction” under the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

On Tuesday, I will try to prove that it’s not immoral to tell the truth.

As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates.

My case requires that I provide personal testimony from people who can attest to my character. That’s why several members of my military unit have written letters of support and offered to testify on my behalf.

Now I need your help. ANYONE who believes the Army should not fire me can take a stand right now. I am bringing a statement of support to Tuesday’s trial and I need you to add your signature to it. Will you support me by signing this statement before Tuesday?

I want to thank the 141,262 people who have signed the “Don’t Fire Dan” letter launched a few weeks ago by the Courage Campaign and CREDO Mobile to President Obama, asking him to take leadership to bring this tragic policy to an end.

The momentum is building. This week, 77 members of Congress signed a letter to the President citing my service as an example of why DADT should be repealed. And a Gallup poll was recently released showing that 69 percent of Americans — including 58 percent of Republicans – favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve their country .

As I learned at West Point, deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force. That’s why more than 70 of my fellow West Point graduates have also come out of the closet to join Knights Out, the organization I co-founded to build support for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

The only way we will eventually overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is by speaking up together. You can help me fight back right now by adding your name to my statement of support. On Tuesday morning, I will bring your signature — and thousands of others — to my trial as a demonstration of your collective support:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/SupportDan

National security means many things, but the thing that makes us secure in our nation and homes is love. What makes me a better soldier, leader, Christian and human being is love. And I’m not going to hide my love.

Love is worth it.

Thank you for your support.

Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN
New York Army National Guard

And my response:

We should treat honorably servicing members of the military with honor.

Court martialing Lt. Choi is dishonoring his service. Court martialing Lt. Choi will stain the Army not Lt. Choi.

Court martialing Lt. Choi clearly indicates that for the U.S military, the words “honor” and “dignity” should be prefaced with “mostly” and “while convenient”.

Being willing to face a court martial in order to do the honorable action is the highest indicator of honor that any service member could demonstrate. This willingness to sacrifice oneself is what the military demands. Self-sacrifice doesn’t always come in the form of a bullet.

The hardest form of self-sacrifice is willingness to be subject to societal rejection.

Lt. Choi should be promoted not court martialed.

Posted in political | No Comments »

Open Message to the anti-tax crowd: move

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

Amazon’s definition of “unconstitutional” :

“We don’t like it”

I love all these people who whine about taxes.

Don’t like taxes? Move to Somalia. No functioning government since Bush the First – a libertarian paradise.

The anti-tax people complain about taxes but want the benefits of:

  • a functioning University system so that there are high-quality people to work at your cool start-up
  • a public school system that at the very least keeps kids off the street. (50% of California’s budget)
  • roads
  • police
  • prisons ( 10% of California’s budget )
  • state parks
  • a functioning emergency system for the next airline crash or the next earthquake
  • airports
  • Caltrain
  • weights and measures people to make sure that when you buy a gallon of gas you get your full gallon
  • code enforcement to make sure a restaurant is not serving 3 month-old rotten meat and the kitchen is not infested with cockroaches
  • zoning enforcement that stops your neighbor from running a chicken farm
  • labor laws that stop child labor and insist that your employer actually has to *pay* you
  • SEC laws that require that companies follow GAAP
  • laws that allow lawsuits and action against companies when they pollute the water you drink

Next time you think that the government does nothing for you. Spend some time finding out how badly mainland China, Dubai, or Yemen allows the powerful to abuse everyone else.

I can go on and on.

But seriously, grow up. You want to live in a civilized society? expect to pay for it — it does not come for free.

Oh sure, it isn’t perfect — fine make it better.

As for me, I am happy to pay taxes and enjoy the best state (California) in the US. There is no way I would move to another state that has worse laws.

Update 1:

A few other “unnecessary services” from the government:

Move to Somalia. Avoid these annoying bureaucrats!

Meanwhile think about this:

  1. In the 70’s corporations paid 2/3 of the taxes, today after a full generation of the rich whining about taxes corporations pay 1/3 of the taxes.
  2. 30 years after Prop 13, the biggest beneficiaries of Prop 13 are corporations because they never, never sell property ( 99-year leases anyone? ).

All this anti-tax rhetoric has allowed corporations to shift the tax purden to the individuals.

Maybe it is time to wake-up about this scam and stop buying into the anti-tax rhetoric so blindly.

Update 2:
More from TechCrunch:

State governments assess “emergency” tax measures to get quick money because they can’t bear the thought of making the tough choices necessary to cut spending

Hmmm… so in hard economic times, when a social safety net is that much more important you want states to cut funding.

So from your perspective:

  • Unemployment insurance
  • Job retraining programs
  • Community Colleges
  • 4-year public universities
  • subsidized day care
  • subsidized elder care
  • Section 8 housing assistance
  • School lunch programs
  • morning/afternoon pre-/post- school day programs
  • community grants for starting a new business

Should all be cut.

Someone who has just been laid off can try to job hunt and compete with 500 applicants hoping they can keep their head above water economically;

Or

they can return to school and complete their AA degree or the BS, or get their MBA using the above listed services to make it economically possible.

By providing these services, a state enables their citizens to be more valuable and more productive when the economy turns around.

The single mom ( or dad ) may start the downturn with no college education. Through the services listed above, this single parent could end up with a degree that will enable them to double their income. Or give them the skills to start their own business.

Yet you make the interesting choice that states should remove this opportunity to turn economic lemons into lemonade.

Interesting. I am curious why you think that a less-educated workforce is a good choice?

I should add that Herbert Hoover was wildly successful at cutting government spending in the Great Depression. I am curious do you think this was successful for him? If not how is the same approach going to be successful today?

Errata Note: Original post referred to Ethiopia. The correct country should have been Somalia. I usually know my geography much better. However, since Somalia now has a government (as of December 2008), the last John Galt paradise is gone. Thanks to Peter for pointing this error out.

Posted in political, rants | 5 Comments »

Stations do NOT affect train speed

Monday, June 15th, 2009

Bullshit from an email thread and repeated constantly by the California High-Speed Rail Authority:

“Other potential benefits are also intriguing: a probable economic windfall for several cities along the route . . .”
and
“There will be as many as 24 passenger stations along the way . . .”

The train could more easily meet speed requirements if it stopped less. CA should do some land use planning first, then plan the train.

How would a station affect speed? Every train has to slow down to say “Hi”?

Stations have nothing to do with speed. Stations are INFRASTRUCTURE.

Station STOPS affect speed. Station STOPS are an OPERATIONAL decision and can be solved with a schedule change.

How come no one talks about having fewer freeway exits as a way to make freeways go faster? Because its stupid, drivers don’t get on and off at every freeway ramp. Yet somehow people think that a train has to behave like a stupid driver who takes every freeway exit! How come people think a train has to stop at every station?

News flash!

Trains can skip stations! If a train doesn’t stop a station the existence or (non-existence) of a station is irrelevant!

California High-Speed Rail Authority puts out this BULLSHIT as an excuse to avoid building a system that could actually serve dual purposes as both a long-distance system and a higher-speed adjunct to commuter rail.

“We can’t build more stations because that would slow down the train!”

This shinkansen train doesn’t look to be at all affected by the station:

Update 1:

Questions and astonishment from the email thread:

I’m not a train engineer, but I imagine money is spent on building a station with the expectation that some of the trains stop – because people live or work there.

I would hope so myself!

If there are stations for which trains stop infrequently, is that good planning?

Yes it is good planning. Stations can be built at relatively low cost. At the lowest end just a long enough siding, a asphalt boarding area, a parking lot and a place for taxis/buses. Even for HSR there is no reason a low frequency stop has to have even a building. Sure the HSR trains might require a high platform but that can be easily handled with a portable “step-up” carried on the train.

If I lived, or had a business near that station, I sure would want as many stops as possible.

well of course you would — and I want a pony. Wishes don’t mean you get.

Communities around those stations will use the existence of the station as marketing to attract development, but should it be happening at all 24 stops?

How is this a bad thing? Communities promoting passenger rail is bad?

Might there be some type of express/local arrangement, where a slower local (on a separate track) can feed the HSR? That doesn’t come through on the article.

You don’t need a separate track for anything except the station area. The station siding just needs to be long enough to allow for acceleration/deacceleration off of the main line. ( about 9 miles on the acceleration, less on the deacceleration ) Unless we are talking very impacted ROW the extra track is minor. The siding track is only necessary when the OPERATIONAL issues dictate that a train stopped at a station needs to be passed.

It probably doesn’t come through in the article because this is another operational issue that is decided after system is built. Running a train slower that system maximum because it is a “local” only matters when a higher speed express wants to pass. If there is nothing coming up behind it, a train can run at 40mph on the main high-speed line or it can stay stopped for 10 minutes blocking the main-line track.

How many stops do you think a typical train will make?

The system being proposed can run a train every 3 minutes / direction. 20 trains per hour going the direction you want as a passenger. If a passenger is going from one low traffic station to another they might have to transfer but at least they get service from a station close to their house. Why are we going to make them drive a long distance when the tracks are next to them. So what if only one train stops per day? This is just like Amtrak today!

Just make sure that the entire end-to-end trip time does not exceed a policy maximum.

How is it decided which stations to stop at?

By the people setting the schedule — same as today. Don’t get this question at all.

you’ve GOT to be kidding! Train Stations & Bus Stops have EVERYTHING to do with speed! Did you see: Muni floats plan to pull hundreds of S.F. stops

Really?
So the VTA 522 Rapid is slowed down by the existence of a bus stop on a curb? Did not notice that at all! Better go out and remove all those sign posts along El Camino Real for Route 22. That will definitely make the 522 go faster.

Update 2:

that bus is the transit agency’s version of BRT.
Not only have they eliminated stops (one mile length between most stop), it doesn’t even have a schedule after it leaves its origin at set time, meaning it doesn’t have to ‘wait’….

Amtrak buses doing something similar – on many runs, they will only stop if a passenger gets off, but not to pick up.

I think it important to recognize the differences between bus types – local, inter-city, BRT, and train types: commuter rail, heavy rail, LRT….speed is always an important factor – to some types more than others. Intercity trains are expected to go faster than commuter rail; commuter rail faster than heavy rail (though there can be express and local subway lines, of course), all both faster than LRT.

Can you imagine a ’smoke break’ for HSR???

And ?

Once again — how is the *existence* of a bus stop going to affect a bus’s schedule if the bus doesn’t stop at the stop?

How is the existence of a train station going to affect a given train’s speed and schedule if the train doesn’t stop?

I am completely baffled.

I am completely astonished that the NYC subway routes are impacted by stations where the train doesn’t stop.

I really do not understand how the “6-express” subway runs slower because of the existence of the “Elder Ave” stop ( which the 6-Express skips ). Perhaps someone else can help explain this?

I have no idea what a “smoke stop” has to do with station planning. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Update 3 [ 15 June 2009 23:13:00 ]:

An intelligent question from twitter:

Is there a (federal) law requiring trains to slow below a certain speed in stations irrespective of stopping?

No Federal Law. A train can go through at whatever speed it wants to. Certainly, some sort of warning system may desirable. The only exception is “holdout” stations. Holdout stations are stations where passengers cross active tracks to board. California Ave USED in Palo Alto, Ca to be holdout station.

Posted in environment, high-speed-rail, political, random silliness, rants, transportation | 2 Comments »