Skip to main content

why the stm is driving me crazy

i posted a little while ago about a little detour snafu near my office involving some temporarily relocated bus stops. i was happy when, a day or so after my post, someone from the transit authority did put some notices up on the permanent stops so that commuters would know they'd moved and not just assume they'd been abandoned.

unfortunately, as the saying goes, you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. but in this case, the horses are bus drivers.

for some reason best known to the drivers themselves, the detour appears to be strictly optional. some drivers follow it and turn the corner a block west of my office. others plow right on through and follow the regular route.

the "fun" part of this is positioning yourself so that you can see any oncoming bus and then guessing where it's going to stop. since there's an easy 300m between the stops, your reactions need to be very quick. there is also a busy intersection and if you haven't planned right, you get to play frogger against oncoming traffic. [ironically, the oncoming traffic includes the bus, which means it could catch you instead of you catching it, although that would at least be one way of ensuring it stopped in a specific place.]

at the moment, this just sounds stupid, but i assure you, when it's happening, it seems flat-out diabolical. i understand that there is a lot to take care of, but surely having the buses make stops where they're supposed to is one of your chief tasks, stm? i mean, if you can't handle that, you should probably put the breaks on any grander plans you have. because believe me, no one will mind the seats being uncomfortable if it's a choice between that and the bus showing up and stopping at the bus stop signs, we're ok with cramped buttcheeks.

tomorrow, i have to get to an appointment. the appointment isn't until 3, so i should theoretically have lots of time to work a half day or more and still make it. The problem is, i don't know how long i'm going to have to account for stalking a bus in the hinterland just because the drivers would rather play by their own rules. perhaps i should work from home.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…