Paul's Comments

There are a number of people who don't want to suggest that an 11-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl should be using a condom to have sex because they're afraid of the girl getting pregnant.

Duh, I have a strong suspicion that when an 11-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl end up becoming parents, it's because he wasn't using a condom!

Over and over and over again, 5,000 years of history tells us that no matter how much you push abstinence programs, kids still have sex and because you aren't drilling it into their heads not to have unprotected sex, some of them (well, the females only but I mean it in terms of them together having the problem) are getting pregnant and it ends up being either a disaster or an unmitigated disaster depending on how bad you consider the problem.

I think there was a story about how there were two female winners of the contest or scholarship or something like that at some high school (or it might have been junior high) who wrote the best essay on not having premarital sex, or on abstinence, or whatever it was, to basically tell other students at that age that they should not be having sex. The two girls turned up pregnant.

You look at all the things, the laws making teenagers having sex criminals, the laws making prostitution illegal, the laws (generally struck down) making fornication, adultery and sodomy crimes, the laws that make pornography illegal, or possession or sale of sex toys illegal, are all a result of the strong puritan background and general prudishness of sex and the typically hypocritical opinions people carry around where they publicly condemn various opinions about sex while at the same time doing things themselves privately that they themselves claim they wouldn't do or think that they have the right to declare what other people consent to do to each other to be illegal.

Allow some kids to see two people having sex, if you haven't filled their heads with all sorts of bad ideas, and they'll just see it as two people who care about each other and making each other happy.

But we'd call that (showing the explicit video of two people making love) contributing to the delinquency of minors. But there'd be no trouble showing two guys beating each other to death to the same audience of kids, even if it was actually a snuff video. (Which is yet another urban legend.) I have no idea why showing kids a video of some guy pounding on his woman (or her pounding on him if it's done "woman on top") as a result of them having sex and both of them enjoying it is bad for kids, but show two guys pounding on each other with their fists to inflict the maximum amount of pain and injury is not.

One shows two people expressing how much they care about each other, the other shows two people expressing how much they hate each other; the first can be banned but the second can't. (Which is correct; you can't ban video of people fighting.)

Which is another thing. If you have a video of the prototypical example I gave of the 11-year-old boy and the 14-year-old girl having sex, that's child pornography and illegal to show publicly (and probably to possess). But if he was beating the crap out of her with his fists, that would be legal to show in public and to possess.

In fact the fact that kids are now getting cameras and showing themselves in sexually explicit poses and getting caught in the old child pornography laws is causing problems nobody thought of.

It's one thing if you want to make illegal pictures of some child who was raped or otherwise exploited; it's quite another thing when two kids have consensual sex, which is legal (the laws in their state follow what is referred to as the 'Romeo and Juliette' exemption where if they're under 18 but less than 3 or 4 years of age difference it's not a crime for them to have sex) but the video of them having sex with each other illegal, and convicting them of distribution of child pornography by e-mailing it to each other.

I'm not kidding; a court of appeals upheld a felony child pornography conviction against two kids who did exactly that. It was legal for them to have sex, but illegal to film it and e-mail it to each other, and the appeals court gave some weird excuse to argue that it's important that they be protected against sexual exploitation by giving them a prison sentence and marking the two of them as sexual predators who now have to register with the police for the rest of their lives. (I'm presuming the laws that usually expunge criminal convictions at 18 don't apply to convictions involving sexual offenses.)

At least one judge had the good sense to dismiss an attempt to prosecute a similar case.

What we need to have is a law on the books that state that you can't commit a crime as a result of what you do to yourself, and if what you're doing is in concert with someone else where they also are consenting to what they are doing to themselves, you can't also be charged with conspiracy for what the two of you do to each other as long as it stops short of criminal homicide or similar actions.

After I wrote this, I realized the answer is that it should not be illegal to film (video) an act or distribute that video if the underlying act is not in and of itself a crime. This would eliminate kids from having underage sex because of the exemption for being close aged, while at the same time, being criminally charged for having (illegally) recorded the sex they were (legally) having with each other. Since the sex itself was not illegal, the video of the same should not be.

But then you still have the problem of charging them with a crime for what they do to each other. Well, in states where they passed the example I gave of 'Romeo and Juliette laws' that's been solved, but we need to do something similar.

But I suspect some people won't like that because it would decriminalize attempts to commit suicide (which is used as an excuse to put people who try to kill themselves in a mental institution). I've heard that in China, (obviously unsuccessful) attempts to kill yourself are punishable by the death penalty. How ironic.

Whether we should criminalize sex between a 15-year-old and a 40-year-old is another issue; for a large percentage of cases it's usually some slimy guy my age hitting on a young girl who's innocent and doesn't know any better. But sometimes it isn't. I may be old fashioned, but I think there is a big difference between some 14- 15- or 16-year-old boy having sex with a woman two or three times his age (which if people didn't fill his head with sickness, he's going to think was the greatest thing to happen to him), and some guy my age doing it with a 15-year-old girl.

Of course, if she's 18, nobody cares. Whether she is really exploited probably depends on the circumstances. But the law doesn't take that into account, the general rule is "16 will get you 20." But when they said that, it was only illegal when a guy had sex with an underage girl. Nobody tried to argue that some how underage boys had to be protected from older women.

Nabokov's Lolita is considered an example of exploitation of a minor (young girl, older man). Herman Raucher's Summer of 42, on the other hand, is considered a touching coming of age story (young boy, older woman).

Witness some sheriff trying to confiscate copies of the film The Tin Drum because, apparently it involved a young boy getting laid by some older woman. Notwithstanding the fact nobody considered this story objectionable until the movie had been out for twenty years. (A later court would find the confiscation either was illegal or unwarranted.)

I've never really understood how the Supreme Court found an exception for pornography in the 1st Amendment. I can understand a law against child pornography of sexual abuse vicims, but I've never understood how you can declare material made by adults for adults to be unprotected by the 1st Amendment other than because some people don't like it and the courts basically have used that as an excuse to say that some material can be protected and some can't.

Which made me think of something; if someone videotaped a woman being raped, would that be considered something which can be made illegal? Well, as it stands, if she's under 18 it is; I'm not sure what happens if she's over 18. But if it was a fake for a movie, the one involving an underage girl probably still remains illegal as child pornography, but not if she's over 18. To do otherwise would mean the movie The Accused, where Jodie Foster is raped on a pool table, would be declared to be obscene and banned same as they would have declared the movie to be child pornography if it was a simulated rape of a 15-year-old using an actual underage girl.

This would make an interesting story except I think it was done once. Before Russ Meyer got into directing porn, he did a movie called The Seven Minutes about an obscenity trial of a book, and how the publisher successfully argued the book was art rather than smut.

If you've ever heard of how the U.S. Supreme Court got into deciding what was or wasn't smut, you might have heard of the Miller case. In Miller v. California the High Court set down the rules for what is or isn't obscene. It's got to basically be explicit, dirt for dirt's sake over the whole film, and have nothing else going for it. ("stimulating to prurient interest, violates community standards, and utterly lacking in redeeming social values.") Which would probably cover almost everything on YouPorn.Com, but in any case, what has happened is, some porno producers started adding serious commentary as filler in order to cause the work in question to violate the Miller test and fail to be obscene. Put a few minutes of argument over the death penalty, gun control or obscenity itself, and you've got a winner that fails Miller.

I've heard Miller was basically a not-very-likable guy who used to pirate other people's porn and sell it himself. I think he tried to argue when he got caught distributing porn that the stuff he was selling was obscene and thus not copyrightable (which is correct) but the judge would point out that the work was illegal to distribute!

Now, let me go onto one of the other items I mention to expose our own hypocrisy, laws against prostitution. The late, great George Carlin did it far better than my poor power to add or detract. He pointed out it's legal to make sales, it's legal to have sex, but it's illegal to sell sex. It's only illegal do do so openly, if you do something else, and include sex as something you add free, you can get away with it. If someone figured out we could have every woman on the street advertising that she's doing web design for $175 an hour - and basically you can learn how to do that in 10 minutes - there'd never be another conviction for prostitution because she'd mention she does web design, goes to the guy's place, asks to see his computer, and then waits for him to suggest they have sex. Or maybe she claims to find him interesting and suggests it. Since she didn't ask for money for the sex, she's not committed a crime, and he didn't offer money to have sex, he hasn't either.

Further, she could be carrying around an old computer to perform the work and could set up the task to be performed.

The point is that $175 an hour for web design is not out of line for the work, and thus it's going to be hard to claim it's actually for the sex. When I first got my commission as a notary public I realized that something similar could be done for street walkers who only charge $20 or $40, that they get notary commissions and offer to do mobile notary, where they charge a trip fee for an unlimited number of notarizations, and then if they "find the guy interesting" suddenly decide to be willing to have sex with the guy.

I'm not the type to hire hookers but I'll pass on this piece of advice on how to pick up hookers and be guaranteed you can never get arrested. You don't ask them for sex when you pick them up; you ask if they're willing to do nude modeling. If you're talking to a female cop, she has to turn you down because hiring someone for nude modeling isn't illegal and she can't bust you; the hooker wouldn't care.

Recently, something happened to improve my "mental state" in which, all of a sudden, I've acquired an amazing state of clarity. Things seem so much clearer and easier.

There is one possibility, back around 2002 there was a "crunch" in my head and things became a lot clearer, just like now. So maybe I had one in my sleep. I know what it is, too, it's called a "catharsis through abreaction," and personally I refer to it as "mainlining happiness."

Now that I have a power wheelchair, it has restored my ability to go out and do things, so I've started to improve my life. I've gone back to borrowing (too many) books from the public library, and actually reading them. I go out almost every day, I've gone to movies - I still need to see the remake of The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 - and I've done a number of other things.

I have complaints and comments pending with the Board of Directors of the transit authority. I sent an unsolicited request to the Governor of Maryland to appoint me a director of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority. I sent him a few extra suggestions about other things he's interested in so that hopefully he personally will read my letter. I also sent the County Executive of Montgomery County a note on how I can offer them a suggestion on how to solve the problem of the extra costs of insurance for letting police officers take squad cars out of the county. But he doesn't get the solution for free; he has to give me 10-15 minutes to present it in person.

I am in the final stages of actually implementing my plan to build 106 apartments and raise funding to do so, where I can pay investors 30% interest on their money, and do that in 9 months. More info on that at www.viridianva.com.

And what may be the biggest one of all, and will probably take several years to resolve, what with motions, counter-motions and appeals. I have filed suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County naming the State's Attorney and the State of Maryland as defendants to have the state's law prohibiting open carry (the possession of a handgun in public on one's person, such as in an exposed holster, without it being concealed) struck down as unconstitutional as violating the 2nd Amendment. I have a new argument which I don't think was raised before: since the U.S. Supreme Court has declared in Heller v. District of Columbia that the 2nd Amendment is definitely a right of individuals, then it is a fundamental right as identified in Gideon v. Wainright and that the 2nd Amendment has as a result of the 14th Amendment, become subject to the "incorporation doctrine" and thus applicable on the States as a fundamental right of the people, and thus the state cannot infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the law prohibiting open carry infringes upon that right.

So I've been busy lately! (This might be an understatement.)

Office of the Board of Directors                                        May 24, 2009
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
600 5th Street NW
Washington DC 20001

Complaint No. 2009-003

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 62(b) of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact I hereby file a request with the Board of Directors for a hearing with respect to the service rendered with the facilities of the Authority. The remainder of this letter explains the matters and things on which the request relies, and deals with the rendering of transportation service for the disabled on Metrobus and Metrorail.

Originally I probably would simply have e-mailed this note to Mr. Christian Kent, but, I discovered when I sent him some suggestions about ways that I thought might improve service, he basically blew me off by saying that there is a lot of work in making changes on the issues I had mentioned.

I came to the realization that Mr. Kent basically never even read what I wrote. One of the items I suggested involved a recommendation to change a feature of the interactive voice response system on 202-637-7000. A suggestion to change the system running on the Authority's main number should have been something considered much more serious than some minor change elsewhere. Since Mr. Kent has absolutely nothing to do with that department and it's clearly outside his bailiwick, should have been a red flag indicator that he, had he actually read my message, would have set off alarm bells and he would have said he was forwarding that suggestion to someone at the appropriate department.

That response would have indicated he actually read my e-mail; his response obviously indicated that he did not.

So he basically presumed me to be, as Randall Greaves did in the motion picture Clerks as "just another pain-in-the-ass customer" which things would be so much nicer if they weren't around to bother them. Clearly, my suggestions were unwanted, and, as unwanted suggestions, I'm sure, were basically ignored. In fact, he later explicitly blew me off by recommending I send further suggestions to yet another (probably) bored Metro employee, who, I'm sure, after not reading them, would dismiss them as worthless or ignore them because I'm not an employee of the Transit Authority.

Therefore it looks like my only recourse is to "make a federal case out of it" and make every single complaint, suggestion or notice that I make to Metro into an Article 62(b) hearing since that appears to be the only way I can get myself taken seriously.

This attitude by lower-level employees of the transit authority goes back years. In one case, about eight years ago, I wrote to the supervisor of bus operations because while I was standing at a bus stop, I had some trash in my hand from food I had been eating, I stepped over to the trash can - which was next to the stop - and the driver ignored me, blew the stop and drove off without even slowing down. This bus ran once an hour and caused me to be late to work.

I was at the time not disabled, and was standing. I am 6'2" and weigh 400 pounds, I am impossible to miss. But the bus driver decided to ignore me simply because I was being polite, and instead of littering, I used the trash can next to the bus stop to throw something away, and the supervisor of bus operations never even responded to my letter, similar to the way even the Board of Directors either was slow to do so or simply did not respond to my first letter when I wrote to them until I sent a duplicate copy.

It is this sort of cavalier attitude that probably makes anyone who can avoid using Metro do so.

I have recently obtained a power wheelchair. It was my intent to use this to "wean" myself off of Metro Access and perhaps be able to resort to direct use of Metrobus and Metrorail, but for "the matters and things on which this request relies" as Article 62(b) states, it's clearly obvious that I cannot do that at this time, as the supposedly "accessible" service that is provided by Metrobus and Metrorail is inadequate, as I will now explain.

Matter 1.
On more than one occasion I have had to be at a spot near to a bus stop where there is a driveway, curb cut or ramp so that I can get to the bus. For the purposes of this complaint I provide three exhibits by reference.

Exhibit (1) is the bus stop located at approximately 416 Brightseat Road in Landover. This is in front of a private house on the C22 bus route, and is across the street from the Prince George's County Welfare office ("Department of Human Services"). The stop consists of a bus stop and a bench which I believe has a shelter, and sits, on a concrete platform behind the curb. There is no sidewalk on the even side of Brightseat Road, which means that I have to cut across the street from a driveway on the odd-numbered side and wait on the street in front of the stop for the bus to show up.

There are two basic kinds of handicapped lifts that your buses provide. The older style that slides under the stairs, lowers to ground level and rises over the stairs, and the newer kind that is basically a piece of plywood that folds out.

Bus drivers picking people up at the stop at 416 Brightseat Road have no problem picking up passengers in wheelchairs, on the road, and I have been picked up there in both a manual wheelchair and a power wheelchair without a problem. Your older style lift ramps are not a problem, they'll come down to ground level. The fold-over ramps might, in some cases be a bit steeper but even on a manual wheelchair I've not had a problem.

Exhibit (2) is the intersection of Doppler Street and Larchmont Avenue in Capitol Heights. One side (F14 and J11/J12 buses coming from Addison Road Station) is a reasonable sidewalk with a curb cut, and there is no problem taking a bus which requires use of the lift. The other side, however (buses going toward Addison Road), is a logistical nightmare, in that while there is a curb there, there is no curb cut, making use of that bus stop difficult unless I stay in the street. ½ a block away is a driveway, and one could come back partially (the bus stop sign itself blocks the sidewalk enough that a wheelchair can't get by), but the sidewalk is so narrow and blocked by a chain-link fence that catching a bus there is very difficult because there is no capability to back up to allow the wheelchair ramp to come down (and the first time I tried I didn't even realize there was a driveway near there; I waited in the street.)

Larchmont Avenue in that area is relatively narrow which means picking me up from the street in front of the curb would not be a good idea (the bus would have to block traffic both ways), so one of the few ways to solve the problem is to wait at the stop, then tell the bus driver I'll go across the street to the other side of Doppler to allow him to load me from there because that side does have a curb cut and I could get on from there. I suspect if I tried waiting on that side of the street and no one was at the bus stop to tell him the driver would not figure I was waiting for the bus and would bypass me. To solve this problem I go to...

Exhibit (3) is one block downhill from Larchmont and Doppler, at the intersection of Larchmont and Cumberland Avenues. Here, the house next to the bus stop has a convenient driveway I can use to wait for the bus, so I do so. I have caught several buses at this stop.

Twice, however, I've had bus drivers who proceed to tell me that the new-style fold-over plywood ramp will not be able to reach me if I'm on the ground (the driveway is essentially even with the street.) Even with the bus being lowered.

The driver wants to argue with me that the ramp will be too steep and I won't be able to get on, notwithstanding the fact that I have done it before both in other places at that sort of height and at that very location and more than once in both cases.

I get one bus driver who insists I have to move to higher ground, to the sidewalk area adjacent to the driveway. I'm trying to explain to the driver that he need do nothing; he does not have to help me or do anything for me, all he has to do is lower the ramp. But he won't do it; he claims it's not going to work, despite my educated opinion to the contrary.

I gave up. I agreed to move over to the higher spot, but unfortunately I'm right on a spot of mud when I try to move over to get on the bus ramp. Now, at this point, the driver for some reason now decides to "show" me that it won't work by lowering the ramp back on the driveway.

Only now I'm stuck in the mud. Three of the passengers come over to try to help me, but my wheels just spin in the mud. I explain to them that between me and the electric wheelchair we weigh about 750 pounds, there is no way they can help. So I tell the bus driver to go, because now, I have to call 9-1-1 to have the Prince George's County Fire Department come by to get me out of the mud. Since I cannot stand, the way to do this is for them to send out an ambulance that has a Gurney, put me on it, then move the electric wheelchair, which 3 firefighters can push because now it only weighs 350 pounds. Now they can wheel the Gurney over to the unstuck chair, and allow me to get back on it.

The matter and issue here is whether some of your drivers need better training in how to handle operation of lift ramps for the handicapped when the handicapped person informs - or tries to inform - the driver that despite his or her opinion, they know it will work because they have done so before.

Matter 2.
Metro has stated that Metro Access will accept $2.50 Metrorail cards as payment for the fare. I liked this feature as I could purchase blocks of them at a train station and have them available so I wouldn't be in a position to not have the means to pay for a trip if I didn't have cash on me, which sometimes happens. I take a trip across town, and I give the driver one of the $2.50 Metrorail cards. I have a return trip booked for the following morning, which was a Sunday. I am informed by the Metro Access driver when I go to use one, that now Metro Access no longer accepts Metrorail fare cards.

This has to be a mistake on his part, the other driver took one and didn't say anything. So I use my cell phone to call Metro Access, and tell the dispatcher that the driver is claiming this. Well, I get the dispatcher who informs me that yes, Metro Access no longer accepts Metrorail fare cards. But in view of the circumstances they'd be willing to let me have a no-charge trip.

In view of the issues I've had with Metro Access in the past I am scared to death what new and exciting gremlins would come flying out of Metro Access' systems to attack me in the manner done by flying monkeys upon Dorothy in the movie The Wizard of Oz if I accepted this offer, so instead I ask the relative I went to see if they could give me $2.50, which they did. (Actually it was $3 so I just gave him that.)

There was no indication in either the letter or the quarterly bulletin that Metro Access had instituted such a change. There was no sign or note in the Metro Access van indicating such a change had been implemented.

Now I'm more-or-less stuck with $25 in farecards I can't use.

The matter and issue here is whether it is the policy of WMATA and/or Metro Access to "whipsaw" people, and basically screw them over without warning, as apparently this unannounced and undeclared change in policy was intended to do, or negligently did if someone did so by mistake.

Matter 3.
Further, the bulletin from Metro Access indicated there would be a method for prepaying for trips that would be available on the website to view, and perhaps even accessible from the IVR system, and would be available May 1. This method is not available.

I also reported to Mr. Kent that the Metro Access website is broken in that when used with an alternative web browser to Internet Explorer the ability to book a trip does not work. It has been more than two weeks, I think, and as of 2:43 am Monday May 25, this problem has not been fixed.

The matter and issue here is whether Metro Access is going to announce features that are not present on their website systems, or to release changes to such systems which are clearly broken and malfunctioning, and continue to fail to fix them when such problems are reported.

Matter 4.
At approximately 3:58 pm today, May 24, I was catching the Yellow Line train to Huntington at L'Enfant Plaza. I attempted to board your car #6176, which I do by activating my power wheelchair and rolling forward, as I have done a number of times. I believe this was the center door, but it doesn't really matter as I've never had an issue which which door to take on a train, they all seem to be okay.

But not this time. This attempt did not result in me getting onto the train. This attempt resulted in a loud "BANG" and my being left off of the train, still on the platform. Presuming that maybe I had not gotten up to speed, I backed up a bit and tried again, to a resulting "BANG" as I ended up with my ass on the platform and my legs on the train. At which point the doors proceeded to close, and I'm half-way in the train, but the doors can't close because I'm in the way. Once the driver opened the doors, I backed up a bit.

A couple of passengers wanted to help, but I explained - for the same reason as when I got stuck in the mud - me and the power chair weigh about 750 pounds, there is no way they can help me on. I decide to be a nice guy and let the train go.

The matter and issue here is what is going on with the maintenance or adjustment of metrorail cars to allow this sort of fiasco to happen. It could have been worse; I could have gotten jammed between the car and the platform, requiring the fire department to get me out, as happened when I got stuck in the elevator at Capitol Heights Station requiring the PG County Fire Department to get me out. Or maybe worse than that, maybe I get injured because I'm not far enough to block anything but far enough that I fall in or get dragged by the train.

I'm brand new at operating a power wheelchair, I'm still deathly afraid every time I have to go downhill on roads, driveways or ramps, now I have yet another fear, that maybe your slovenly maintenance of rail cars is going to get me killed or injured worse than I already am.

Matter 5.
[In the original letter it's misnumbered as 4] I'm stuck in a dilemma. I am having incidents where either the lack of training of your people on how to handle equipment is causing them to effectively deny me service, or because of problems with your equipment I am unable to get service.

I now have two choices: keep complaining or take direct action. Since sending complaints into low level employees doesn't seem to help much - I apparently am just dismissed as a whiny complainer - and making a stink in the manner of a 62(b) complaint seems on the order of using nuclear weapons to kill flies, I don't know what to do.

I am getting sick and tired of being treated as a second-class citizen simply because I'm disabled and either the bus driver arrogantly "knows" that I'm wrong and my attempts to use the service won't work, or the service doesn't work because something on your equipment goes haywire.

You know, when I wait for a bus or train I'd like to be able to use it. But forcing me to end up taking the next bus or train because of this sort of problem is unacceptable. So I've got three choices here to try and make you notice.

The first is to file a 62(b) complaint, wait two weeks until you ignore me again (as the lower level people would ignore any complaints sent there) then complain again and have someone tell me something to the effect of "oh sorry, I didn't hear you when you knocked the first time."

The second is for me to document these events when they occur, then sue the transit authority for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act every time this happens. Maybe I don't win, but when you have to keep spending several thousand dollars in legal fees every time I file one, you'll do something to fix these problems. That, however, then wastes good money which might be used to provide more service.

The third is for me to institute a "no more Mr. Nice Guy" policy and state categorically that the next time a bus driver refuses me service, or a vehicle such as a bus or train has a problem that I am denied service, then that vehicle stays out of service until either I get service or they call the transit police to arrest me, and my wheelchair, for blocking the vehicle and refusing to let it leave. You can imagine that I'll have a field day over this one, holding a press conference to tell the television stations and the newspapers how the Transit Police arrested a guy in a wheelchair because he refused to be denied service when the transit authority refused to give him service it was required by law to provide.

When the customers on the vehicle complain, I'll be happy to give them the names and phone numbers of as many members of the Transit Authority Board of Directors as I can find, and recommend they call them to complain about it.

Of course, then there will be the usual comparisons of how some white guy is essentially pulling a Rosa Parks because he's ticked off. Well, I'm not ticked off now, I'm considerably worse.

I alluded in my first letter that I was like a "Hiroshima mushroom cloud" in terms of my anger over how I was treated by merely being slighted by what was ostensibly a minor error that fortunately didn't even inconvenience me. These incidents of treating me like I am garbage, however, have now morphed into the Firebombing of Dresden, if we want to pick up more metaphors from World War II.

Many people have been struck by the "Fear of Paul" from just the consideration of how I would act if I was upset. Well, the Authority has now unleashed the "Wrath of Paul," where I am now even more angry and upset than I was before. If that is even possible.

The matter and issue here is what the Transit Authority wants me to do when I have a problem, and what it will do to try and alleviate the situation as opposed to me deciding to implement the equivalent of a holy war, either bombing you with 62(a) complaints or ADA lawsuits. There has to be some answer that allows my issues to be resolved without resorting to more expense that serves no purpose. I mean, I'm one person, you're the representatives of a billion dollar Transit Authority, at most I can represent an expensive irritant that if I keep being regular about it, eventually you put up a line item in the budget marked "Costs of lawsuits by Paul Robinson."

But there has to be some other answer. And I hope we can find it because I'd like to be able to get on with my life without having to keep stopping and writing complaints (or having to go into even more drastic measures such as lawsuits) to the board of directors because other attempts to fix the problems or examine my suggestions go ignored.

Sincerely,

Paul Robinson
"A computer programmer and Notary Public in and for
the Commonwealth of Virginia, at large, and the
State of Maryland in and for Prince George's County."

I haven't posted here over about the last month because I've been busy with my new toy. I now have a power wheelchair from Hoveround! I called them, found out what I needed to do, went to my doctor, who knows my condition, and wrote me up indicating I needed a power wheelchair. Medicare approved my claim, and the only problem was the co-pay, which I think was something just under $1000. I took the company's questionaire and I qualified for a co-pay waiver which I got because of my financial condition, subject to accepting a used, refurbished, demonstration model - with the same warranty as a new model - and all I was required to pay out of my own pocket was - get this - the Medicare mandatory contribution.

$36.10

And that's all I had to pay. I have basically spent the last month either going out almost every day to practice or going out every day and doing things. I should have done this a long time ago, but, as the saying goes, "shoulda, woulda, coulda and $3 will buy you a latte at Starbucks." (That's my rewrite; the original line was "shoulda, woulda, coulda and 50c will get you a cup of coffee." That may also be my rewrite too; I believe when I first heard it the price was a nickel. Prices have gone up since then. Actually I think you can get a fairly decent cup of coffee for probably around a buck, maybe a little more (maybe less) at 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts - reportedly the single largest distributor of coffee in the United States - and you can often get coffee for free when you visit your bank. I'm not really sure, I don't drink coffee; I never acquired a taste for it.)

I would estimate that having a power wheelchair has restored perhaps 70-90% of my functionality in public. I can't climb stairs, I have to restrict myself to places where there is a ramp or an elevator, is no mud, and I have to be careful in how I move on downward slopes for reasons that I explain below, but it it such an amazing change in my life and my lifestyle that now I actually feel guilty if I don't go out every day!

It also frees me from the required one day advance notice to Metro Access, I can simply leave on the schedule of the J11/J12 and F14 buses, which each run once an hour in this area. Also, for very short trips I can go myself; I no longer have to use a shuttle to do my laundry, I have a laundry bag I bought, I can load my clothes and the bottle of detergent and carry it in my lap down to the laundromat which is, roughly 3 blocks from here, then bring it back.

The only real problem I have with using the electric wheelchair over the manual is that there is a big difference when I go on any downslope. I don't know why but I get terrible anxiety attacks going downhill or on downhill slopes. Intellectually I know I can't tip over (when I say "tip over" I mean fall forward on my face) but I still get, if not scared to death, terrified or extremely anxious, up to and including having to tell myself out loud not to get scared or other comments.

I know for a fact I can't tip over; the chair and me weigh 750 pounds. That means it takes a lot of force to tip forward. Even if I do, there are a third set of balance wheels normally hanging in the air that act to stop tipping. I'm also belted into the chair so I can't fall out, and it has a footrest on the front. Technically this means I'd probably have to get to a sudden stop at about 100 miles per hour for the worst case scenario some part of me always thinks is going to occur when I'm going downhill to happen. Doesn't stop my stomach from claiming it will almost all the time.

Further, I've had it tip forward on occasion, it gets caught by the balance wheels and, it will simply stop and it will tip back to the normal position. And it's funny that it doesn't bother me that it happens when it does. But going down slopes I still have anxiety attacks that it would. And with very limited exceptions, the only time it tips forward is when I make a mistake and let go of the control joystick, causing the electric wheelchair to make a quick stop, which, of course, causes the inertia of me moving to tip forward onto the balance wheels. Yet for some reason, when this happens, which is the worst-case scenario, it doesn't bother me! I'm not scared when it happens.

But the potential of tipping over onto my face when I'm going downhill, which I know intellectually cannot happen, still bothers me. I realize that it's just an irrational fear - I don't have it when I'm using a manual wheelchair except in very limited circumstances where I'm afraid that on very steep surfaces I might have trouble keeping my wheelchair from rolling forward or simply skidding - and it will fade over time. In fact, I no longer fear going up and down Drum Avenue, the street next to my house. To do that simply required that I went out every day, and rolled up and down the hill on that street five or six times. Every day I went out, under the simple rule of desensitization therapy; if something scares you, you keep doing it over and over until it stops scaring you when you see that you can't get hurt by it and the fear goes away.

I can make a joke here that when I go anywhere I went uphill both ways. Drum Avenue runs from Doppler Street to Cumberland Avenue where there is a bus stop at Cumberland and Larchmont, half a block away. There is a hill on Drum Avenue which goes up from Doppler and Drum and goes down from there to Cumberland, and conversely, coming back, is a hill from Drum and Cumberland then goes down from there to Doppler. So it doesn't matter which way you go, you have to go uphill in both directions!

Funny thing is I've never had a problem going uphill, I can go uphill at the fastest possible speed the chair can offer. But downhill scares me, even if I slow down. Well, at least it gives me one serious advantage: I am careful and thus I am unlikely to do something that will cause me to make a serious mistake.

Another reason I know this is simply an irrational fear is I can do one simple thing that makes it vanish: drag my foot (or both feet) on the ground. Doing that in a power wheelchair where the two of us weigh about 750 pounds is not going to do a damn thing to help, but the instant my foot or both feet touch the ground, the fear vanishes instantly. In fact, if my feet are in the way it's quite possibly more dangerous than keeping my feet on the footrest because I could actually run over my foot and injure it, but tell that to my stomach which, in some cases is giving me screaming agonies of severe anxiety attacks.

When I'm trying to get across places, like coming back down the driveway from the street, sometimes I touch the ground and it helps. Also, slowing down the speed I go downhill can help. But I have to realize something, that I can actually make the problem worse if I let go of the joystick which controls the speed, the chair can come to a stop and actually trigger it to tip forward as a result, causing the very condition I fear will happen.

Technically I know what it is: it's an issue of control; by touching the ground or slowing down I have the illusion of control which, in the case of a manual wheelchair is correct and is not an illusion. In a manual wheelchair I use my hands and feet, and possibly the manual brakes to prevent the wheelchair from going too fast or potentially tipping over. In the case of an electric wheelchair all the control is in the joystick which determines how fast I will move and the direction. When I am in the wheelchair and my feet are off the ground I am basically helpless and totally dependent upon the chair. The intellectual part of my brain knows that I can't fall forward because of the way that the chair is designed, plus the fact, I'm belted into the chair.

But the part of my brain that understands how to protect me is not developed enough to understand this yet. But it's learning and at some point, when I go down a hill at full speed and forget that I've done so, I'll know that it has learned and the problem is solved.

It will just take a while.

I had the opportunity to meet with four people on April 3 from the transit authority regarding my complaints as I noted in my blog entry from 3/3. I spent about an hour there, to some extent repeating the highlights from my letter of the incident that date, as well as hearing their explanation of what happened. I also had a very tasty sandwich for lunch from the Burger King across the street from the transit authority headquarters.

It seems there was an error in the systems and operations which occurs when someone orders their trip on Metro Access. When I booked my trip I specified I needed a time after 10. The agent may have misheard me, and started to enter 10, then corrected it. However, the system requires additional keystrokes to confirm this, and the agent apparently failed to do so. Thus the order was reset automatically back to the original 10:00 arrival time rather than the 10:29 time it was promised to me.

They actually thanked me for my complaint, because the only reason that they found the error was because I reported it. They implemented some new policies to catch this sort of error so that it should not happen again.

Also, it was pointed out to me that WMATA (the transit authority) is running a number of services that are much more advanced than some even larger (and older) transit authorities. They've been visited by executives from other transit authorities including New York City and Philadelphia who were amazed at some of the things that the transit authority here has done such as the on-line booking system for Metro Access, apparently it's considerably more advanced than some of the other systems have been able to accomplish.

When I was preparing to go to the meeting I thought it might not be a bad idea to include some suggestions on how to solve the problems that I noted, because making complaints simply is grousing about the problem, it doesn't necessarily help the situation. So I also gave them a list of suggestions to help with what I complained about. I'll show the list at the bottom of this message.

I thought that it was one of those times when you have a meeting and you really do get something productive done. So I think it was worth going.

Here's the list of suggestions I made (comments about them are in a box below each suggestion):

1. Metro Access rescheduling appointments: Consider increasing capacity customers have for booking trips on-line. Only places customers have been to before can be selected. Perhaps use USPS or Mapquest to validate an address. Areas that might be outside of Metro Service area can be checked against zip code. This would allow any address that is in a zip code where all of it is serviced by Metro would be bookable through the website. This would reduce mandatory call-in requests for new locations in zip codes where Metro Access only partially serves.

   Problem with this idea is addresses need to be "geocoded" because they have to make sure an address is correct so they can route vehicles to the location as well as the routing between any specific point and another. Additionally, the system not only takes orders, it also schedules Metro Access vehicles and tries to organize trips to increase passenger load. That makes sense, so that if you have two people going to the same location or where one is along the way to the other, it can take both of them in the same vehicle. I have some suggestions I am thinking of since then, which I'm going to send along to them as more suggestions.

2. Closing Door Too Soon: Have metrorail operators "double flash" doors when departing stations; hit the close button, then immediately hit the open button. This would add about 5 seconds to the time at the station but would allow anyone in the door more time to get clear as opposed to the too-fast close that can cause people, such as wheelchair riders, to be trapped.

   This was thought to be a good idea.

3. Pressing wrong elevator call button: Put either a painted circle or some form of circle, in color blue, on the correct call button on every elevator. Then you can simply print a sign and show it anywhere in the system:
   • To Call Elevator, press the blue Dot: O

   I had considered a green dot, except that green and red are the two most common colors that people are color blind. However, if there is no other dot on any of the elevator buttons then a green dot would be okay.

   It was interesting that when I mentioned the idea of putting a blue dot on elevator call buttons as opposed to a green dot (because green and red are colors more likely for people to be color blind to), I was informed that one of the managers I was introduced to is himself color blind!

4. Elevator Maintenance: Split up crews and add trainees so that instead of two elevator technicians, have one journeyman technician and perhaps 3 or 4 trainees, possibly paid something just above minimum wage or whatever the requirement is. The elevator repair person would be showing the trainees how to do elevator repairs. Trainees could also do some of the less difficult tasks such as lubrications and cleaning or whatever is required. Over the appropriate period of time that it takes to train someone. Also, would make it easier for the current technical people since, if they have any smarts, the first thing they'll do is train the people to do the worst parts of the job. Also they'll have more help and it should make their job easier (and potentially faster and less stressful).

   I'm thinking since the purpose is not to cut the number of employees the union should not have a problem; in fact, since you're training people they may end up having some of them as members. Also, it would train some people to go into this work even if they don't end up working for Metro, you're not paying them that much.

   I have a suspicion that Metro has even worse problems with its unions in that I got the impression that they didn't necessarily think that this idea would really be all that acceptable. But I pointed out, these were suggestions; maybe they aren't all workable but even if not, they might give them ideas that they might not otherwise have thought of.